@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Kalcifer

@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works

All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

🔰 🏳️‍🌈

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Are you looking for something for a headless server or something for a system with a GUI (eg a desktop)?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

It entirely depends on how you want your homelab to work. I use a reverse proxy to set up subdomains for my publicly facing services because I find it easier and cleaner to assign a subdomain to each service, and I also like having HTTPS managed by a single point — a sort of single point of entry to the rest of the services. You'd have to decide what you want out of your homelab, and find and set up the services that yield the outcome that you want.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

What are its rules? I don't see anything in the sidebar.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I don't understand the downvotes that this post has received (Currently 8 upvotes and 27 downvotes). The post is just reporting on a finding. It's not stating an opinion. Are people just unhappy that Trump's polls have increased so they're taking it out on this post? Is there something wrong with the article link? Is there some inaccuracy in the reporting? This feels like an example of shooting the messenger. Am I missing something?

I suppose there is the fundamental issue of people not collectively agreeing on what upvotes and downvotes should be used for.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Measured voltage is completely dependent on what is used as a reference. If you were to measure the voltage of a power supply set to +30V with a voltmeter whose leads were backwards (ie positive on the voltmeter connected to negative on the power supply, and negative connected to positive), then you would measure -30V. All this is to say that if you connect your 30V supply "backwards", you will have -30V. Now, there may be some circuitry in the power supply that only allows current in one direction, and it could be that it's able to source a different amount of current than it's able to sink, so be sure to check its manual.

I've tried -12V from psu i've got lying around but it didn't work.

I'd advise caution against arbitrary decisions with electronics — both for your own safety and the safety of the equipment.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Tea (PG Tips Original) with milk and sugar.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Essentially, it's because it's a monopolistic/anti-competitive relationship, so the producer is able to charge much more than if it were competitive. The producer seeks to maximize profits, and the schools enable them by effectively controlling the market.

Mothers’ care is central factor in animal, human longevity. In species where offspring survival depends on the longer-term presence of the mother, the species tends to evolve longer lives and a slower ( news.cornell.edu )

The relationship between mother and child may offer clues to the mystery of why humans live longer lives than expected for their size – and shed new light on what it means to be human....

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hm, perhaps I didn't see it in my cursory glance of the article's text, but is there a distinction made between the physical sex difference of a mother and feminine/maternal traits? What I mean to say is: is the article claiming that a female is important, or that the stereotypical traits of a female are important? If the latter, I would wonder, then, if a masculine presenting female would be negative in the eyes of the study.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I question the potentially sensationalist title. Why specifically target "Elon Musk"? Would it not be more accurate to pin the responsibility on the entirety of SpaceX? I could certainly be mistaken, but I feel that the decisions made at SpaceX are not only Elon's.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That's an interesting idea to consider (if I understand you correctly in that you are stating that there should be a central research authority that regulates what companies are allowed to do). Though, I wonder if it's still better to sue for damages after the fact and create regulations to cover the oversight. There's also the issue of data — you can't exactly study an issue before it exists. If you are instead inferring that a company should conduct this sort of safety research themselves, it creates a sort of prisoner's dilemma: companies wouldn't be to keen on sharing their research with others, and if they are forced to, a company wouldn't want to be the one to waste the money on it for others to profit off of.

I'd also like to note that this sort of regulation has no business being the decision of a single country, but, instead, it should be the decision of a global government, as it is an issue that affects the whole planet. How such a global government should be structured, though, I am not yet certain. The UN doesn't exactly cut it.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Best be hoping Tesla collapses

Why?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Natural Gas rockets? What a small step for man, massive step back for mankind.

Why do you dislike methane as a fuel? Also, in case you were unaware, as a side note, SpaceX's newest rocket, which is currently under active development, Starship and Super Heavy, uses methane as a fuel.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Those micrometeors aren’t mostly aluminium.

Do you have a source for that? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I've found a number of sources that show that meteorites contain aluminum:

To be fair, I don't think any of those claim that any meteorites are "mostly" aluminum. But is that a true requirement?

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

they are finding elements that don’t even occur in nature

Neither of your referenced quotes claimed that the elemental makeup of the measured particulate was synthetic. If you are referring to "Niobium and hafnium do not occur as free elements in nature", what this means is that the elements are not ever found on their own — they have only ever been found bonded to something else. Niobium makes up 0.0017% of Earth's crust and Hafnium makes up 0.00033% [source (archive)].

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Meteors are leftovers of the same primordial stuff that made up earth, so a cross sample of them would largely share the same ratios as earth, minus the volatiles.

Logic would dictate that that is likely, though that statement itself isn't scientific. Do you have any sources to back that up? I could see a possibility where, perhaps, certain elements are more likely to coalesce into planetary bodies, and others into meteoroids. It could also depend on the location in the solar system where the formation occurred — the primordial dust cloud that made up the infant solar system, I would wager, would be far from uniform.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hm, while the presence of the elements in question in the atmosphere could be naturally occurring, what's important to consider for this discussion is the rate of their increase. If there's an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere that correlates with an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites with no related increase in the rate of meteors, then its likely that the artificial satellites were indeed the culprit.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Meteorites do contain aluminum. The issue is with the concentration of aluminum in the atmosphere, as well as its rate of increase. If there's an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites accompanied by an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere, then it's certainly fair to consider that the two are correlated. This is especially so if there is no increase in the burn up of objects from any natural source — eg meteors.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

We have better rocket fuels which degrade into water vapors.

Which fuels are those? Also why would one want their rocket fuel to degrade? I can see fuel storage issues with that. Furthermore, keep in mind that the reaction of CH4 and O2 (combustion) creates H2O (water) and CO2. The only fuel that I'm aware of that creates only water when it's combusted in O2 is H2 (hydrogen). An issue with hydrogen as a fuel, when compared with methane, is its mass ­— lower exhaust mass lowers the specific impulse.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

What? You didn't answer any of my questions, nor did you comment on any of my side notes.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Your questions were shit

Would you mind elaborating?


natural gas rockets are [...] harmful to us all.

Why? Do you have a source for that? Why would natural gas be particularly worse than any other fuel?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

One thing that's important to be aware of is that some regions have laws that prohibit the collection of rainwater. So be sure to check the laws that apply to your region.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Large collections of rainwater could disrupt water ecosystems. Admittedly, my comment doesn't warrant much concern given the context OP's post. Here is an article talking about Colorado's water collection laws. Here's a Reddit thread that offers some more information.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

OP’s wildly misunderstanding.

I'd say it's more just an overabundance of caution — rainwater collection laws aren't without precedent. Admittedly, given the context of OP's post, my comment doesn't warrant much concern.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I'm not sure if they count as underrated, but the band that immediately comes to mind is The Dear Hunter.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yeah, Alison Tifel wrote the episode "The View From Halfway Down", which is what this poem is from and shares the same name with.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

So, IIUC, you're saying that if a user on A browses a community on C, they will never see a user from B?

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I dont know if they can see my content but I dont think they do.

From what I understand, they should still be able to see your content — you are still posting to the network.


You can always ask the folks on .ml for they make the software.

Ha, well, @dessalines is a moderator of this community.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

It’s breaking the stated aim of open federation by tampering with comments, posts and mod records, which in turn get propagated or de-propagated to connected instances, right?

I'm not convinced that this is in conflict with the aim of federation. The whole point is to give people the power to create their own instances with their own rules instead of having to rely on a single central authority. The network isn't necessarily distributed — it's decentralized. An instance can administrate their content as they see fit. An instance cannot alter the content produced by any other instance. An instance can only manage the content originating from itself.


but 1) one instance (particular a significant one like ML) affects other instances

Would you mind being more specific?


they’re breaking the spirit of their own software by shamelessly abusing admin powers, in turn helping to normalize that behavior to the Lemmy side of the FV.

Hm, well, it depends on your perspective. The whole point of the Fediverse is to give people the freedom and power to control how they interact with the service. A server has the freedom to associate with the users that they wish in the same way that you have the freedom to consume what you wish. The spirit of the software is to enable people to have this freedom that otherwise wouldn't exist with a large central service. The way I like to look at the Fediverse is where each instance is like a country, and each community is like a regional/state/provincial government within the country, and federation between instances is like cross-border policies between nations.


a supposedly transparent [...] social network?

I'm not sure what you mean by "transparent".


a supposedly [...] user-run [...] social network?

It is user-run, in that any user can create an instance.


a supposedly [...] P2P social network?

It's not P2P. A P2P network would be distributed. The Fediverse is decentralized.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

How about supporting users who want to improve their community instead of finding a new one?

I support that as well. My initial point was from the perspective of users not originating from lemmy.ml being annoyed with how lemmy.ml is administrating itself. If the users of lemmy.ml wish to stay to try and improve it, then I fully stand behind them, but, at the same time, I still support lemmy.ml's autonomy.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

It's likely both. The ratio, however, I'm not sure of.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

What do you mean by "it's standard"? As in that is the intended functionality? It shouldn't be — the whole point of blocking instances is for the user to be able to, well, block an instance, ie content originating from it no longer shows up.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Is that stated in the documentation?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hm, I feel that it's inaccurate to say "we wouldn't be able to tell". It's not exactly a black box system — the app would have to run on an operating system, and if you are able to know what the operating system is doing, and what instructions are being executed by the CPU, then you can know exactly what the app is doing.

What the aforementioned bits of information provide is the ability to treat software as a black box and be sure of its safety without having to fundamentally audit it.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

For sure. What the aforementioned bits of information provide is the ability to be confident in the privacy of software if one were to treat it as a black box, ie an average consumer.

When responding to a comment with multiple points, should one create a new thread (new comment) for each point, or should one make a single large comment containing individual responses to all points?

I encounter situations like this rather often where I am responding to a comment that contains many individual points/statements. I typically will respond with a single comment that contains a quote of each point that is being responded to with my response under neath the respective quote — and, sometimes, for added clarity, a...

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I generally try and pick few of the strongest points and reply to those.

This is one possibility, but it's quite flawed, as you end up losing portions of the conversation.


It’s impossible to debate someone who replies back as you demonstrated above.

It may require more effort, but it's far from impossible. And that's precisely the reason why I outlined the second alternative that has atomic comments.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

You could have support for this thing in the board’s software, but I don’t think it’s common. So normally, where a post will have at least a header, sometimes also a footer, multiple posts means duplicated data on screen. Pretty minor though.

Support for what? I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to with this section.


I think it fragments the workflow a bit because normally you can just quote a block and easily interject your replies + add more quote syntax. If it were multiple posts you’d need to repeat certain steps each time. Personally I want to minimize switches between keyboard and mouse. On mobile it’s more even.

That's a fair point. Replies do sometimes rely on fragments of information from the entire post, but, even still, one could still just contain that within an atomic reply, but yeah, it would need to be repeated for each part. Personally I'm not bothered by the increase in actions. Generally, one isn't commenting in a large enough volume for that sort of efficiency concern to really matter, imo.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

If this is in reply to the second quote, then I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. You appear to be opposed to atomic comments because you don't want to scroll for context, but the alternative, which I outlined, is a comment containing quotes for context — and to solve what you are describing, you would require the entire thread to be contained within the comment, which would still require scrolling. Neither option really addresses your complaint. Imo, atomic comments come the closest, as the scope is kept restricted per thread.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

you should look at a website called Kialo. I haven’t used it in years and I don’t know if it’s active but it’s an interesting concept based very much on that idea

Ah yeah, I've heard of that site. It definitely seems interesting, but I'm not too keen on getting invested in another centralized/non-fediverse service.


New comments have to be approved

Hrm, this feels like it has immense potential for administrative abuse.


I can definitely see the service's potential, but I would like to see something like it that can connect with the Fediverse.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

replying in individual comments is stupid and more confusing.

For clarity, would you mind explicitly stating why you believe that atomic comments are intrinsically more confusing?

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I apologize if I've offended you, as that wasn't my intention — I'm only trying to understand your opinion. I'm aware that we have different opinions, I'm just curious what your rationale is for yours.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That's an interesting idea, but I feel that it overcomplicates things without much benefit.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That not how science works. You don’t get to posit a theory without falsification and declare it as true until someone else comes up with a falsification for it and tests it.

You have no evidence you just have wild theories based on “perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum” .

Did you not read my previous message? Or did you, perhaps, misinterpret it? My original thesis was "under capitalism, a properly regulated, and competitive free market is not zero sum.", which you claimed was impossible. I then provided a simple example for why it was not impossible. You seem to perhaps take issue with the example's idealistic nature, but the original thesis was idealistic, so I'm not sure why there would be an issue with that. This is purely a conceptual discussion — my statement wasn't making a claim about how effective regulation is at ensuring adequate competition. So I'm not really sure where the issue lies.


And monopolies don’t prove the non existence of Capitalism. They’re it’s natural end result.

Monopolies appear to be the natural end result of a true free market — that is, a market with no regulation. Capitalism simply describes a competitive market. To that end, note that a monopolistic market — ie an anticompetitive market — is, by definition, not capitalist. In practice, to ensure fair competition, a central governing body is required.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yeah, take a look at the solution at the top of the post.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines