Mama told me not to come.
She said, that ain’t the way to have fun.
Yeah, I can definitely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, but the difference isn’t so large as to make me use it everywhere, so I default to 720p unless I need a bit more definition (usually for text).
My TV is 4k but I can’t remember the last time I actually displayed 4k content, almost everything we have is old DVDs (so 480p?) and 1080p Blurays. I don’t see the point in paying extra for Ultra HD when the picture isn’t that much better at our viewing distance.
I don’t remember that discussion at all… I remember people being super excited for 1080p, but annoyed that there was no content for it because DVDs were still 480p and TV content was similar. Blurays were 1080p, but weren’t really a thing until the late 00s.
We’ve had 4k for a decade, and there’s still not much content for it. When there is, the difference w/ 1080p isn’t so significant as to be worth the cost, as it’s usually just upscaled 1080 content. 4k makes a lot of sense for a monitor that’s 30" or larger, but for a TV where you’re 10-15 feet away it doesn’t make nearly as much sense.
Yes, as a monitor, if it’s over 30" or so, 4k makes sense. If it’s a TV, 4k doesn’t make much difference given how far most sit from their TV. Maybe if it’s a massive TV or something at like 80"…
360p is awful, 720p is the sweet spot IMO.
Extra points if you bring some munchies to share.
Exactly! Some examples:
Set the precedent, then gradually expand scope.
Exactly. And once people sign a petition and see it actually get implemented increases the chance that they’ll get involved next time.
This petition is great because it’s:
Something like homeless doesn’t have as clear of direction on solutions. Likewise ads, since that runs afoul of how tons of businesses make money, but this could be leveraged to reduce/eliminate ads in games that you pay for.
If this petition actually goes somewhere, I sincerely believe we’ll see more petitions from people who otherwise wouldn’t speak out. Ross was one of those people, and if he sees success, he’ll inspire a bunch of other people like him to act. I think it’s fantastic.
It would be nice if it had Bluetooth or something to control from the app. There’s no reason I’d want to run the vacuum outside a defined schedule when not at home, so the only useful feature of an app is local config.
Anybody who feels uneasy over this behavior is 100% justified. Anyone’s who’s lived through Apple’s “Monopoly busting underdog” or Google’s “free and open internet for all, don’t be evil” eras doubly so.
That’s fair.
I guess my point is that they’re easily replaceable. Immich is easy to fork, Grayjay is simply a client for existing services, etc. Nothing they have built or supported really locks you in, and they’ve been explicit about not wanting to have a server component.
So to me, the impact of FUTO being or becoming evil is incredibly low, unlike Apple or Google, who have a much higher ability to lock in users. The whole mission is about removing people from those types of ecosystems into one where users can more easily switch to alternatives. The software should be preferred on its own merits, not the merits of the ecosystem it’s part of.
So I guess that’s why I’m more comfortable giving FUTO a pass: I can easily change my position tomorrow if they “go evil.”
Fascism and libertarianism are fundamentally incompatible ideologies on the far opposite ends of the spectrum.
Thank you! So many I talk to seem to argue that they’re related.
There is a libertarian -> fascist pipeline, but it’s mostly because both are fringe and fascists seem to start of thinking they’re merely fringe, but then quickly realize their true colors when they disagree so much with libertarians. This mostly seems to be from anarcho-capitalists who believe their socially conservative views should be enforced, moving them up the authoritarian spectrum.
Case in point, Trump was booed at the Libertarian Party convention, Penn Jillette was outspoken against Trump on Bill Maher in the first term, and “libertarian” conservatives Rand Paul and Thomas Massie criticizing Trump.
The idea that this contradiction doesn’t hurt the reputability of the organization is absurd.
Isn’t part of their mission that the reputation shouldn’t matter?
FUTO is all about disrupting centralization. You can dislike FUTO but like the work they do and the projects they support. The goal isn’t to make good versions of existing apps, but to make credible alternatives to existing apps, thus helping break the monopoly.
The first was never “AI” in a CS context, and the second has always and will always be “AI” in a CS context. The definition has been pretty consistent since at least Alan Turing, if not earlier.
I don’t know how to square that circle. To me it’s pretty simple, a solution or approach is AI if it simulates (or creates) intelligence, and an intelligent system is one that uses data (learns) from its environment to achieve its goals. Anything from an A* pathiing algorithm to actual general AI are “AI,” yet people assume the most sophisticated end of the spectrum.
The party doesn’t seem to represent those that I’ve interacted with
That’s kinda true for everything, no? Parties just represent whatever is popular at the moment.
Look at the GOP in the US, in 2016, they were pretty universally on board with hating Trump, and now they’re trying to suck up to him. Likewise with Dems, they used to love unions, and recently they barely give them a nod. The parties of today look very different from even 10 years ago.
On the other hand, typically it’s the extreme fringes of movement that will tell you specifically what they believe, and the quiet majority in the middle keep to themselves. Sometimes Dems think I’m a Dem too, and sometimes they think I’m a Republican. Likewise for Republicans, it really depemds on the subject. Many people who would otherwise label themselves “libertarian” don’t because they play the lesser of two evils game depending on where they lean.
libritarians miss the forest for the trees
If anything, it’s the opposite. If libertarians miss nuance, it’s because they’re focused on big picture principles instead of exceptions and details.
Any change based on principles should be gradual and its impact carefully measured.
But you deney the help that social programs provide, and actually benift the economy.
When did I claim that? I explicitly said I support a social safety net. In fact, I’m left of many Dems on that, since I believe in UBI (or my preference NIT). I think we should repurpose SS for this and maybe expand it a bit.
I believe in a banced budget and to eliminate any part of government that isn’t carrying its weight. I want to closely examine:
Basically, go agency by agency and determine what it’s value is, what it’s cost is in terms of freedom, and what options we have to accomplish similar goals with more freedom. The goal isn’t to gut the government, but to trim anything that isn’t providing sufficient value.
AFAIK, no libertarian has an ideal size of government except perhaps “zero,” but instead just knows we need to trim what we have to cut waste and trampling of freedoms.
Why? Idk about you, but I like it when FOSS projects I like get a bunch of funding, especially since they retained their same license.
What exactly is the issue? Do you not like Linux either because they’re largely funded and developed by Google, Intel, etc?
The overall discussion is about FUTO, sort of, but this particular subthread is about Immich. If you want to discuss FUTO itself and their license, move to one of the subthreads about that.
I don’t know about Immich, but in other FUTO projects you click the “I’ve paid” botton and it’s disabled, even if you didn’t pay. FUTO licensed code says you can’t remove the pay button in derivative works, but Immich is AGPL so that doesn’t apply.
I love FUTO’s “license” policy. Basically, the license only shows you’ve paid, and in many cases, you can click the botton without paying and get the same badge. They’re basically encouraging donations through guilt.
People should donate to projects they use, and I think FUTO’s nudge is a good idea that more projects should adopt.
As a visible minority, I know libertarians are not my friends
I keep seeing this and don’t understand it. Do people lump all the right wing crazies in with libertarians or something?
I get that libertarianism is a big tent, but it’s not a tent that covers intolerance. The foundation of libertarianism is simple:
The non-aggression principle[a] (NAP) is a concept in which “aggression” – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited.
If someone thinks it’s okay to hurt or disparage someone based on their skin color or country of origin, that’s a violation of the NAP and definitionally they’re not libertarian. A lot of people hide behind the libertarian label because they’ve been thoroughly rejected by the major parties, but that doesn’t make them libertarian.
Libertarians disagree on a lot of things, like the role of government, whether property rights exist, and what is “aggression,” but they are very consistent in rejecting hate. Libertarians were supporting LGBT folks before it was cool, and the 2024 candidate for the Libertarian Party was a gay man in complete defiance of the candidate chosen by the Mises caucus, the far right caucus that took over the party. Libertarians are about as extreme left as you’ll get on social issues, and about as extreme right as you’ll get on fiscal issues, generally speaking.
I guess I genuinely don’t understand what people see as libertarian. I consider myself libertarian, but I take my roots from Penn Jillette, and add in stuff like UBI. Here’s a great snippet from him, and my (poor) summary:
How can we solve problems with more freedom instead of less?
…
The government should should only use violence for things I am willing to use violence for. I would use violence to stop a murder or stop a rape. I wouldn’t use violence to build a library.
I think a social safety net crosses that threshold. I would use violence to feed my family, and I would defend someone else who does so as well, so I think it’s fair for force everyone to pay into a social safety net that ensures everyone has enough to survive using the excess of others.
My SO is a visible minority as well, and they have no issues being with me. So I guess I’m missing something about the public perception of libertarianism.
I’m not a fan of that argument. Basically, that article goes: I don’t like their definition of open source (fair) and it’s weird that the founder platforms a far right person (also fair), so you shouldn’t trust FUTO (weird conclusion).
I don’t like how we find some reason to discredit an org who does otherwise good things. Look at the reaction to Framework donating to projects run by unsavory prior people. None of the discussion is about the technical merits of the projects, but the association with people who have certain political ideas.
You’re not going to find the perfect mix of popular, ethical, and the “right” political ideology. As long as a project can be audited and forked, that’s good enough for me. Forking seems possible with FUTO projects, with the weird caveat that payment code can’t be removed. It’s not perfect, but at least their products are privacy respecting and largely drop in replacements for non-privacy respecting first party apps.
Could FUTO be better? Yeah, absolutely. Is the founder’s relationship with a far right activist concerning? Again, yes. Do either of those stop me from enjoying their software? No, I believe in enough of their mission that I think supporting them sends the right message: software source should be available and devs should be paid. The rest of the nonsense doesn’t really impact that.
I feel the same about Framework. Could they do a better job selecting projects to donate to? Yes. Does that change the fact that their hardware is easily repairable in a market dominated by unrepairable slop? No.
At the end of the day, I have no problem supporting projects that align 90% with my priorities, even if the last 10% is lightyears away.
Are they sitting through hours of legislature meetings just to have a 60 sec chance to speak? Are they meeting with legislators and city councils to discuss causes they care about? Are they making YouTube content going over lengthy legal documents to show people the problem?
Or are they mostly writing books and speaking at paid conferences?
IDK about you, but the former sounds a lot less bougie than the latter.
Ah, ok. I’m mostly going based on personal experience from the time.