I HAVE WON

Well, it’s after 5am and I’m awake.
But I don’t think that’s what they mean

I like the kind where they didn’t try to explain it. Trying to show how they make their sausage never works out well. I can suspend disbelief for FTL but not for their stupid explanations

That means that functionally the LLM has access to your location.

The tool needs to be running on your device to have access to the location, and apps can’t/don’t really call each other in the background, which means the chat app has access to your location, which means the LLM can request access to your location via the tool or the app can just send that information back to home base whenever it wants.

Read the thread, and then ask yourself the question you just asked me.

Yes, we all know that. That’s what we’re telling you. Nobody is installing power line if running Ethernet is simple.

You seem to be expressing shock that people would choose powerline adapters as their first choice. People are replying to tell you that it’s not their first choice, but they chose it anyway because running Ethernet is often way too difficult.

I think that the answer to “can you install network cabling” is mostly “no”. That’s why mesh networks are so popular these days.

Probably everyone you ever loved dying painfully while you yourself survive but severely crippled.

It sounds flippant and stupid, but like… What could be worse???

I’m waiting for hexOS to get more mature before I dive into the DIY NAS setup.

People who aren’t guests shouldn’t be able to affect the guest list, so removing a guest would remove their plus/minus one

If two people uninvite each other, it’s gonna cause a paradox, and the whole wedding will overflow the stack

I didn’t say greed can’t be part of it, but anti immigration folks position it as the primary or significant motivator, but:
If they were primarily motivated by greed, the would have immigrated long ago.
And their objection seems to be primarily motivated by greed, the want more and they perceive that immigrants will prevent them from getting more. So why is their greed ok but immigrant greed isn’t?

What is my explanation? I don’t need one, you’re the one saying it’s greed, it’s up to you to prove that in the face of an entirely reasonable counterargument.
But I’ll give you one anyways - they’re looking for a place that they can belong, which isn’t necessarily going to be the first place they arrive. They’re looking for the ability to support their family, which isn’t greed.
Why shouldn’t refugees get to pick what country they move to, like any EU citizen can?

Why would legitimate refugees discard their papers? You tell me, why would having papers be worse than not having papers? That practically screams that something is either very wrong with the system, or that this is simply a dishonest claim.

Why did the immigrants feel the need to do that?
If you’re just going to say greed then I can’t take you seriously, since greed would have moved them far sooner.

Maybe there are problems with the immigration system

I’m skeptical of anyone who says some demographic takes jobs, because it’s an intentional misplace of the blame.
Nobody can take a job, but a company can give away a job.

And strangely you don’t see these same people fighting to lower the birthrates of the majority demographics (since high birth rates will cause the same issues at immigration with a little delay).

So how do you phrase your complaint while keeping the blame on businesses?

Usually, yes
Because usually the reason they have to be illegal is racist, and the person complaining about illegal immigration is fine with it.

Lol so forcing other people to serve your content is free speech, in your mind?

why it is a silly suggestion

Once again, just because it is technically unfeasible doesn’t make the idea bad. Just because a system is limited in its ability doesn’t mean that what the user wants isn’t a desirable thing to have. That’s I think the sticking point in this specific thread with you specifically.
People aren’t saying “we can’t do that” they’re saying “that’s a bad idea because we can’t do that”, and there is a pretty significant difference between those.

I guess you’ve never interacted with an actual developer before, who isn’t also their own PR department

Pretty baseless statement, but there is nothing I could say to convince you of my credentials.
It’s not the technical discussion that is anxiety producing, it’s how some of these threads got wildly out of pocket, and I was getting way too emotional and it didn’t feel good. I didn’t open the app for like a week because seeing those waiting notifications of people hurling insults was not was getting me into a bad place. Testy is fine, this was not testy.

I feel that such a ‘Block’ feature is actually morally bad, as it is a form of lying, providing false promises

This is exactly how I feel about the current “block” functionality. Most platforms would call this “mute” or “hide” to indicate that the effect is purely on your side and it has not impacted them at all.
Which is exactly what OP is talking about in this post.

the only way to actually ensure […] if you want to actually guarantee certain people cannot see some or all

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
We don’t even have to use the word “block”. We can use another term to indicate this doesn’t block them from seeing, only from taking action.
And besides, your concern about visibility is already a “problem” on other networks like reddit, and the people asking for this are ok with that. And really, I’m not against the current block (mute), it’s just poorly named and insufficient by itself. It could be combined with a reddit style block.
Maybe you could tap “block” and then be presented with 3 checkboxes: block them from my feed, block them from interacting with my posts, block them from seeing my posts.

Private communities is a whole other topic (which is where I actually became convinced of this, I used to be totally on your side).
This public-only (almost) design is going to exclude people who would be really nice to include. I know that it doesn’t have to be for everyone, but I think it hurts the culture to exclude the groups who would benefit from these privacy and protection functions.

For a long time I’ve been toying with the idea of a public group chat where privacy comes from out of band exchange of private keys and identifying information, but without all the crazy complexity of duplicating each message for each chat member (which, at the time I was thinking about it, is how signal did it. Idk what they do now). But cryptography is not my strength so the design never really left the basics concepts stage. But this is a pretty significant tangent.

Anyways, I’m sure I’m not the first person to suggest this design to the devs, after all as you mentioned, this is more or less what mastodon does. The devs chose not to take action on it. I can still be unhappy about that lol

I lampooned your own words to show you how stupid it sounded, not for you to take it seriously. Holy shit man.

You seem to be against letting people control who says what on their own servers.
It’s not a stretch to imagine you want that enshrined in law.
Forcing someone to keep content available on their own servers by law is forced speech, because refusing to serve content from their own servers is a form of speech (assuming you’re American, because, yanno) (in this case, the forced speech was deemed legal, but still forced speech).

You’re saying you’re not just for the freedom of speech (government cannot silence you) you’re anti-censorship (nobody can silence you), which means nothing without the ability to protect it.

I needed to step away for a week because this comment section was giving me anxiety.

I know we both agreed the system is not perfect.
I haven’t come up with a solution
and you refuse to acknowledge that treating OP like dog shit isn’t an appropriate reaction for a non-technical user complaining about the confusion behaviour of a poorly named feature.\

I came into this conversation because people kept mocking OP. I’ve been pulled off on tangents fighting about stupid shit because I can’t keep my eye on the ball worth shit, but that’s basically it. People are dragging OP for daring point out that the way “block” works here is confusing and feels bad to use.
Even if it cannot be implemented, it is not unreasonable for a user to request it.

I also absolutely refuse to acknowledge that blocking is antithetical to decentralized systems. Just because it’s not possible with the current design of activity pub doesn’t mean that it’s not possible in other decentralized systems. I’m not looking for perfection, I’m looking for improvement.

Here:
In mastodon, if Alice from instance A follows Bob from instance B, then instance B will send Bob’s posts to A. In addition to that, when B sends Bob’s posts to A, it can also send new block requests.
These block requests are public, and it is up to the subscribing instance to honor them, but it’s most of the way there, and instance admins can choose to defederate with instances that don’t honor it (like they already do with malicious instances).
Lemmy isn’t mastodon, but it still uses activitypub, so decentralization isn’t the limiting factor here.
With Lemmy it’s actually more enforceable, since content in a community is owned by the instance hosting that community. If Charlie is on instance C, and tries to reply to Bob’s post on instance A, instance A could have subscribed to Bob’s blocklist, and will reject Charlie’s reply because it’s in reply to Bob’s post. On Lemmy it doesn’t even matter if Charlie’s instance is malicious or not, as long as A isn’t.
Malicious is the wrong word, but I think you get the idea.