That’s a bit like the investigation into whether lethal bear attacks are because of their teeth or their claws - probably really interesting, but not critical to the question of avoiding the bear.
Thrawn is one of the few fiction villains who is also written as an effective leader. It makes him scarier.
And his ending is perfect.Even though most of his troops are very loyal, his downfall comes from one of the many people he abused during his rise to power.
My head-canon is that the reason no one ever translates for R2 is that he’s extremely insulting in virtually every sentence, not just to 3PO, but to everyone.
It would be a shame not to shamelessly plug author (and anti-DRM activist) Cory Doctorow here. He has some really fun science fiction, and sells his audio books DRM-free through various sources.
Shamelessly, because lots of his protagonists are self-hosters of various types.
It gets weird fast, because before privacy controls in the Lemmy source code mean anything, we need trusted third party verification of a server’s patch level, and security controls.
That can be done, and I think Lemmy has a shot at getting to that point, but it’ll be awhile.
In the meantime, I suspect the Lemmy developers are hesitant to add and advertise features that you can’t be sure are actually correctly enabled on your instance.
But yeah, let’s not let perfect be the enemy of moving toward better.
Edit: Assuming you completely trust your instance admin, we could start adding some basic privacy to actions taken on your home instance.
But as soon as the user starts interacting via federation, all bets are off - because the federated instance may he malicious.
I think we might see one or more “trusted fediverse” groups emerge in the next few years, with instance admins making commitments to security controls, moderation, code of conduct, etc.
So, in theory, the lemmy software could start implementing privacy controls that allow users to limit their visibility to whichever part of the fediverse their instance admin has marked as highly trusted.
But even then, there’s risks from bad actors on highly trusted instances that still allow open signups.
Anyway, I totally agree with you. It’s just a genuinely complex problem.
The “better spend resources elsewhere” part makes sense. The cost side feels a little dishonest, beacuse when large enough government bodies mandate safety rules, suppliers pick up a lot of the cost, under “the cost of doing business”.
Well, except that many, many Twitter outages followed.
Yeah. As a software dev, it was pretty awkward explaining this to colleagues who rely on Twitter/X.
“It sounds like you think Twitter is a software company and that Elon is utterly unqualified to run a software company. That can’t possibly be true, right?”