Adoption is gonna be difficult. Many users don't care that much about privacy in general. So getting them to change their habits is a tall order. Furthermore, a lot of sites see TOR as suspicious and make the effort to block it/put them through captcha hell. I don't see a critical mass of users dropping convenience for the sake of something they don't really care about anytime soon.
There is a cultural factor also - Tor, like most American BigTech, tries to sell us the idea of "trust the network" over any government as "governments cannot be trusted". Yes, governments cannot be trusted but what is worse is if we lose faith in democracy and give in to the idea that some corporate overlord or a foreign network will do a better job of protecting our rights. It's a ridiculous idea that only Americans seem to buy, while the rest of the world are actually enforcing the protections of their rights through democratic means (demanding regulations and legislation).
Personally for me it is about the traffic that may be routed through my computer by the Tor network - I definitely do not want child porn, drugs or terrorist related site transactions packets to even touch my computer. It maybe a rare occurrence, but I want certainty. If we could control the traffic that is allowed on our network / computer, I'd be a more willing user of Tor. (A use case example would be to allow a Tor user to create a white list of onion sites from which they would be willing to accept traffic).
I agree. The certainty is reassuring. I also would never want my computer to touch even the most remotely objectionable material. I've contemplated running a Lemmy instance before, but the concerns you've brought forth are the main contributing factors in my decision to not do so.
Not only that, but TOR is something that becomes more private the more someone uses it. Iirc it's really easy to distinguish TOR packets from regular packets. Combine that with how few people use TOR, you're job of narrowing down who's abusing it becomes much easier.
Finally, just running an exit node opens one up to many legal liabilities. It's not something that's worth the effort, but it's strength comes from many people running one.
I've never worked in an open office space myself. I imagine there'd be a lot of distractions due to the factors you've listed. It's not that difficult to go up to someone else's cubicle for a chat.
I've worked in various size open offices, they can best be described like financial trading floors, some are busy and chaotic, some are not.
The main point with an open office, is people can shout across the room quickly and easily when they want something from someone else which may need an immediate response or response in the timescales said office works to when resolving problems. ie some offices need to resolve things by the end of day, others need to resolve problems within a few days. Its also a lazy way of communicating without a document trail like a messaging system can provide.
Very difficult to manage, accountability is virtually at zero, so if you have a team which doesn't work or has personality clashes, that's a team which will perform poorly, but still look super busy.
Seating arrangements are interesting as well, you can spot hierarchies.
It probably explains the saying, if you want something done properly, do it yourself!
Shouting across the room saves one person 15 seconds while simultaneously distracting every single other person in the office. Regardless of how pro-open office one is, that seems like a terrible trade off.
> day, others need to resolve problems within a few days. Its also a lazy way of communicating without a document trail like a messaging system can provide.
This is the biggest benefit of a slack-first (or whatever your messaging software of choice is) approach. It’s very common that I search chat history from weeks or months ago because someone already answered something that I need to refer back to.
Originally USB-C was supposed to be convenient and easy to use. One port for many different purposes. Instead we have what we have now: a complete mess of a standard that makes it more confusing than USB ever was.
ActivityPub relies on a lot of POST requests being relayed from instance to instance in a full mesh style of networking. I have a lot of doubts about its scale, and also it's reliability in federating important actions like moderators removing offensive content. I'm going to need to read through the spec to confirm if this issue has been addressed, but there really needs to be a way to send multiple activities with one POST request, guidelines for retrying activities to ensure eventual consistency, and to accommodate message queues.
They have ways of bundling already, not all of them use it, also hes not talking about POST, he's talking about GET requests after a share is made, i'd imagine it's to cache the page or get info or something, when somethings shared. It's not the activitypub posting or something like that.
It's depressing because short fiction has the ability to evoke strong emotions in such few words. I remember finding Flowers for Algernon much more impactful as a short story, than I did as a novel. Perhaps it was because I read the short story first.
