Not only are they federating with each other, but they implemented Group to Group following to help prevent duplicate posts. Its a feature that’s been requested for lemmy/kbin/mbin, so it’ll be interesting to see how well it works for them.

which makes it that Mastodon’s implementation will not be compatible with other fediverse implementations

What a surprise! I never would have expected Mastodon to ignore compatibility with the rest of the fediverse /s

But wait, there’s more, we’re standardizing our Groups implementation so other projects can take advantage of our App and Client API.

So its compatible with lemmy but uses a different API and they want their API to be the standard for the threadiverse? This is why we should be using the C2S, but since we’re not you should just stick with the lemmy api since that’s where the client ecosystem is already at.

I wish you luck and would love to see better Interoperability, but mastodon has been against better Article support from the beginning. I’m not sure much has changed there

The author wrote this FEP by reverse engineering the Hubzilla implementation. The point of proposing it is to find and answer questions like these.

OpenWebAuth has been in use on the fediverse since before WebFinger became so widely used.

Like I said in a previous comment, this FEP was written by reverse engineering the existing implementation. It’s still a proposal so it still has to go through a discussion period where issues like this can be worked out and it can be updated

It shouldn’t be this hard to implement a standard structure for social media (groups/channels/sub-reddits) with an allegedly standardised protocol.

Wait til you see mastodon’s proposed Group implementation, which they’re intentionally making incompatible with existing Group implementations

That’s not applicable. Sublinks is using the same standard as Lemmy/kbin/mbin, i.e. ActivityPub. In a decentralized system based on an open standard, plurality of implementations is a good thing. We shouldn’t want lemmy to be the only one.

There are 500 million posts on Twitter every day. Do you read them all? There are 2.8 million subreddits. Have you browsed them all?

Nobody subscribes to every twitter acct or every subreddit so nobody is expecting to have every single post delivered to them. The fediverse has a legitimate problem where ppl don’t actually receive all the posts of accts they’re subscribed to. It’s silly to compare what the OP is complaining about to not being able to see every post on twitter/reddit.

Meta can not EEE the fediverse. The worst they can do is create their own distinct fediverse. But anyone who doesn’t want to participate will still be using the open fediverse. They can’t take your instance or force it to update to their standards.

But if you have to install an extension, how does this differ from current extension that already do this? What could the url scheme do that using http urls couldn’t?

It looks like I was mixing up some facts. The Genius case was denied because genius doesn’t own the copyright to the lyrics they were publishing. I can’t find the case now, but there was a case where a judge said scraping was allowed because it wasn’t a given that the scraper had read a ToS.

Genius (the lyrics company) tried to license the content on their website and a judge said that can’t be legally binding because there’s no guarantee the scraper read it. It seems like the same would apply here.

Their step one is:

identify medium-to-large sized Fediverse servers

which means it’ll be weighted toward mastodon servers. I hope they account for that somehow.

Not every instance is running mastodon. This would be useful for other software that don’t have it built in

Just a heads up: there’s a mastodon specific community at https://lemmy.ml/c/mastodon that would be more appropriate for this post.

If you click the tag link right above the title, it takes you to the list of all articles the author has written about it.

The mastodon dev team is notoriously opinionated. A lot of forks/frontends start because the dev wants features that mastodon has refused.

But have they? I’m not qualified to say. I don’t have any actual data in front of me.

The question was do video games improve your life. I would argue you are the only person who can answer that question. This isn’t really a scientific question because its purely subjective. You’d need to narrow it down and define some criteria before you could try implementing a study for it.

If video games really were an unqualified good

I don’t think any sensible person would try to argue that. Nothing is an unqualified good. Watching 150 hours of tv would be just as bad as spending that time playing video games (video games would probably be better because at least you’re getting more brain stimulation). You can form unhealthy habits with anything. Video games are like any other hobby; you have to balance them with other hobbies/responsibilities. It’s good to know exactly what effects certain things like video games can have on your mind and body, but I don’t think its that useful to compare time spent with one hobby/responsibility to time spent with some other hobby/responsibility. And it always seems like only certain things are compared like that. People rarely ask if watching tv is good for their health, even if they do it more than you or I play video games. Why would playing guitar be better than playing a video game? What makes video games the lowest value hobby? (sorry this got kinda ranty. This sparked a lot of things in me i guess)

I am suggesting that “gamers say gaming is good for them, actually” does not provide useful data for analysis or discussion.

100% This article was a waste of time. I’m not disagreeing on that. Your comment gave me more to think about than that article.

I agree that this is ridiculous. But I think the issue is that the “middle men” are the retail stores that are used to doing retail things like lowering the price of older goods. Digital storefronts don’t have anybody going over “inventory” and checking if it needs to be marked down. And corporations being corporations, they don’t care about this oversight. Why spend time/money on lowering the amount of money they’ll make?