AbnormalHumanBeing

Depends, I am not a person that watches a lot of streamers - but if you end up streaming a blind playthrough of Disco Elysium, I am literally addicted to that.

Hmm, I think we have vastly different perspectives on what PeerTube has to become to be a worthwhile product, because I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't fully see what the problem is and don't think the ultimate conclusion - which seems to be "No one would want to produce and/or browse content on there" - is true. I think the basic issue is that you seem to have the maximalist goal of wanting PeerTube to be at similar numbers to YouTube, and missing that, you don't see anyone finding worth in it - so I will argue against that point, hoping I did not misread you there.

A small thing to start out with, but it is something I have definitely noticed while running an instance these past months, and something people underestimate I think - concerning:

you put even Not An Engineer on your peertube instance and he is going to consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. Let alone a Michael Reeves who would crash the entire fediverse during his annual video.

While taken as-fact if those number of viewers just appeared right now outside of organic growth, it might be true, I am not aware of scaling tests that go that large. But PeerTube is ridiculously scalable in bandwidth, thanks to the Peer2Peer nature. For the same reason many thousands of people can download 4k movies and shows concurrently via torrents with just a few dedicated seedboxes, PeerTube can scale bandwidth really, really well. My server has ~300GB reserved to automatically mirror and seed trending, new and popular videos, for example, so it is also not just home internet connections helping with bandwidth security. So I think you are underestimating the scalability here.

The real costly part is storage, bandwidth is surprisingly affordable considering the project we are talking about - the influx in audience a "big creator" could mean to an instance, as well as with it potential support in donations both directly and indirecty, could very well outweigh the addional costs (again - mostly storage). More generally as another anecdote about how scaleable PeerTube is thanks to the underlying tech - Mastodon has been much more of a head-scratcher in scalability for my server resources (A bit of config changes helped there, thankfully, but it is still far less efficient) - and that is with just me myself as a user on there at the moment, compared to ~50 active users on my PeerTube instance, including people uploading videos.

And:

Ad revenue gets worse and worse every year but it usually is essential to even offsetting parts and labor for a video for smaller creators. I think it was Gamers Nexus that discussed the different tiers of monetization in the context of the honey scandal, but the basic idea is that ads are what let you know if a channel has any legs and referral links are what keep you alive until you are big enough for a sponsor to care.

I don't know Gamer's Nexus, and how their numbers broke down, so I have no real grounds of questioning their logic. On the other hand, I do know of a few channels I used to watch on YT publishing their numbers in community posts. Those numbers definitely made me think, that channels that make proper money from ads that would be essential in any way, are not what I would call "small" at all. And I am a bit confused - first you mention it is essential income, then you mention it is in fact mostly useful as a metric for measuring feasibility? I think I may have misread something there.

Which gets back to: Peertube as a concept is great for official tutorials and MAYBE blog posts by “nobodies”. Why would anyone go out of their way to join in decentralized hosting of that? And while it is conceptually a great way to “can’t stop the signal” an important video… it either rapidly becomes liveleaks or we see the same thing that happened with Lemmy where the instance owners get a phone call from their local FBI equivalent and rapidly say “I don’t want that smoke”.

I'm assuming I missed a valid scandal here that led to closing of an instance, but - Lemmy (and PieFed, and mBin) is very much alive and we are discussing on it. It is even a better place for some niche content in the FLOSS sphere, than Reddit is right now. So, I am not certain what exactly you mean by the consequences of something happening to Lemmy?

But Peertube as something people would even want to browse or create Content for? I have yet to see any path toward that that isn’t “Well, people really love the ideologies of FOSS so they’ll do it out of the goodness of their heart”

“Well, people really love the ideologies of FOSS so they’ll do it out of the goodness of their heart” is indeed part of the first wave of the ecosystem. And roughly four years ago, when I first had a look at PeerTube, that was all that was on there - and illegal stuff, and crypto grifters, and conspiracy nuts banned from everywhere else. So at that time, I think you would have been right on the money with the LiveLeak comparison, I could not stand to stay back then, even as a FLOSS fanatic.

Since then, the ecosystem has grown massively - makertube.net and ~~spectra.tv~~ spectra.video for example have a lot of just passionate people that enjoy making and documenting their projects. There's a bit of a surge of just channels wanting a backup independent of big tech, partially because of the Boycott US movement. Recently, the largest German tech media outlet, heise, have started up their own instance for all their video channels, because they realised that techies are actually on the Fediverse and those are the people buying their magazines. One I couldn't check myself, but Framasoft have mentioned in their FAQ, that there are some French organisations that host with PeerTube simply for the sake of data sovereignty and lessening dependence (I can't confirm the scale here - but I have definitely seen a lot of professional level French stuff on PeerTube I could not enjoy, sadly, due to the language barrier). So, the ecosystem has already grown from the days of just being LiveLeak + hardcore Richard Stallman worshippers. Maybe I should adjust my metaphor from the current stage being lichen, and there actually already being a bit of grasses. Nothing on the level of the really big YT channels yet, but definitely a few on the "professionals with a dedicated community" level already.

Every bit of growth makes it potentially [more] interesting for any non-ideologically motivated content creator that wants an additional audience they may not get if they publish exclusively on YouTube. So that is one entry point, that can eventually become relevant to people beyond those that just find the idea interesting - or are driven by paranoia or idealism. That is slow, organic growth with occasional boom-bust cycles, much like with other Fediverse services - but it is growth, beyond just idealists.

And audience-wise, it already is a fitting niche for people you disregarded - people like me who genuinely do like old YouTube. I am still watching YT, there is some quality content that is simply not available elsewhere, like Majuular's amazing Ultima retrospective which released its latest entry just today. But I have reduced my time on YouTube massively, and I've genuinely grown so tired of some of the tropes that have become impossible to miss after I started to spend more time on PeerTube. Artificial lengthening of videos for watch time engagement for example, blue-balling important information for more engagement. "Leave a comment" just for the sake of engagement and the algorithm - often even to the annoyance of the creators themselves who have to hamper their creativity to fit a formula. The several layers of post-ironic clickbait (sadly, that is also present on PeerTube, but to a lesser degree). I know you are fully aware of all those things and they simply don't outweigh the problems for you, but they are creating an active audience for the PeerTube ecosystem even now, without any of the bigger channels.

So, I guess in the end all I can say is that I don't share your perspective, both in having PeerTube fully supplanting YouTube as a (necessary) goal and in seeing no potential for the platform beyond tutorials and "nobodies". None of us has a crystal ball, of course. I might be wrong - but I definitely see more potential than you do, I guess mostly because I have seen it grow and keep growing, in underlying tech and in participating community, over the past years.

I think you do bring up important points, and ads are indeed a de-facto impossibility (even though, technically, there's nothing stopping someone creating a plug-in that shows ads, the dynamics you describe would make platforms using it isolated quickly). I would add that, personally, I don't want to ever have PeerTube go down the ad rabbit hole, it comes with a lot of dynamics that almost make enshittification inevitable - although I heard some Fedi platforms had some success with very selected and limited sale of hand-curated advertisement spots, that really isn't scalable in the same way.

But while this makes PeerTube uninteresting to the really big players that want or need to maximise their income - I think there is still a lot of potential left. Two of the other big revenue streams are still available - sponsored segments in videos can work basically the very same as on YT. And Liberapay/Patreon/Ko-Fi are still available as well, with Framasoft mentioning looking into enabling better integration for services like it in the future. Another possibility I imagine could work, would be Nebula-like platforms utilising the technology eventually, with local content on the server being fenced-off to paying subscribers, but those registered local users still able to also reach the bigger, free network of videos in the Fediverse beyond that.

There are a lot of mid-sized YT channels, and channels not wanting to compromise on satisfying ad guidelines, that basically only make pennies from YTs normal monetisation strategies and completely rely on sponsoring and patrons. For those, PeerTube is a genuine possibility in the future, after more organic growth. And that growth will have to follow the usual stages of alternative platforms, with currently enthusiasts and hobbyists being the "moss and lichen" to enable growth of "grasses" in the future, to use a metaphor.

this really feels like the kind of software project that has the end state of getting “adopted” by a corporation and the major devs hired on as consultants.

I can understand the fear, but from what I know of Framasoft - if they were prone to sell out, they would not have "wasted" decades on their passion projects, and stubbornly delaying to do more dynamic, non-local, non-French marketing of their "de-google-ify" suite.

EDIT: Good exchange indicative of this I just (at the time of this edit) witnessed on Mastodon:

To be honest, I had the feeling it is lopsided the other way around at the moment: There are quite a few good and passionate content creators, lacking in an audience and interaction. I mean - sure - it does not have the amount of content of a big tech platform like YT, and not enough to binge watch stuff all day long, but I think lack of an active audience is at the moment more pressing - as is discoverability. If not using outside channels - like promoting on their Mastodon accounts primarily - or using places like !peertube@lemmy.world or !peertube@lemmy.wtf to discover things, a lot of worthwhile content right now flies under the radar. And that is excluding unofficial mirrors of YT content, which I tend to avoid.

On the other hand - I know lack of a mobile app has come up at several times in comments on there, and I have myself by now anecdotally heard from a few people wanting to try PeerTube and then being weirded out by the unfinished mobile app in ways that were unrecoverable. In addition, adding more know-how and codebase for mobile applications into the greater FLOSS ecosphere and Fediverse is good in its own right, there is a severe lack of it.

I think that is a good compromise, or maybe doing it just for your own local area and regular commute routes.

While I get the appeal in general, I don't know if I want to go back to planning out a route with maps when driving to far-away unfamiliar locations.

I might be misremembering, but AFAIK, dopamine can't cross the blood-brain-barrier, so even where you want to regulate dopamine (and not, e.g. serotonin like more commonly for depression) in the brain, you have to do so via different medication (e.g. amphetamine derivatives for ADHD or dopamine agonists for Parkinson's).

There have been many ways, both formal and informal, to try and measure human progress towards a proper, humanist utopia. In the 20th century, the Human Development Index was created as a measurement. Karl Marx famously pointed out as a rule of thumb: "Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex". But all of those were, in fact, wrong.

It was only centuries after, when without a doubt, the true measurement of progress was found: The Chair Weirdness Index.

So this is a bit of self-promotion, but I can't think of a better way to link all of them in a neat way: Almost all the channels I recommend (excluding some that are on instances that did not allow mine to follow them, which makes the channel cards not load properly, sadly) are on the landing/home page of my instance, in no particular order:

Follow this link for the overview! - of course you can interact and follow from other instances (including other services like Mastodon). Lemmy does not work properly for following PeerTube channels in my experience, though - don't know about Piefed and mbin.

You can find a similar collection of channels on the landing page of peertube.wtf as well as a collection in a sticke post on !peertube@lemmy.wtf. too.

Hmm, I think at the moment with how Lemmy/the threadiverse is set up, linking to the piefed.social post instead of the link of the post is really clunky - makes interaction pretty hard. Don't know if that was intentional to promote the other community, but a cross-post would probably be a better idea?

EDIT: Lemmyverse link, for people interested to interact over there more easily from a different instance - although I think Lemmyverse.link doesn't work with every client

I love the wholesomeness implied - but I also love that it could easily be turned into a more transgressive-satire comic, by changing nothing but replacing the stray dog with a homeless human.

Good question. Genuinely impossible for me to know, actually. On the one hand, things don't feel like they had been radically different back then, I was stuck in a bubble full of people sharing "Zeitgeist" (that shitty "documentary") and circlejerking each other about how they are wiser and more intelligent for months - in b4 jokes about Lemmy not being any different. My father, an old Stalinist made cynical and paranoid by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, of course also immediately supported it on the principle of "anything anti US must be true and righteous!" So I had my work laid out for me, there.

But some stuff trickled through, like in, wow does that date things, Google Video comments which I remember seeing vividly. Or the odd visitor to a forum getting off an argument before being banned as a "shill". Or, interestingly enough, I also got there because the circle-jerky nature of those spaces had them talk about people working for the CIA or some shit, to argue with them - which got me curious about who those people were, and I found out, they were presenting much more reasonable arguments.

I am in general sceptical of explaining everything with "the nature of the internet" and "filter bubbles". While that undoubtedly has clear and real effects, I still subscribe to those effects panning out in the way we witness, because of how more broadly, capitalism has decayed further and further into crisis mode ever since, and more clearly divorced from its marriage with parliamentarian, liberal democracy even in western nations, and the ownership of media, both social and traditional, has consolidated more and more into the hands of a few people, in addition to the profit incentive shaping the way information is packaged and communicated. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the genocide in Rwanda, the mass killing of communists in Indonesia, none of those needed the internet to happen - and I find it suspicious how we look for the fault for everything now in "common people just being monsters when left to their own devices in an unregulated space", when that space is heavily regulated both abstractly by the profit motive and addictive engagement, and even special interests of individual capitalists nowadays.

Sry, went a bit on a rant there, not implying that was what you were arguing, that's more me arguing against something just brought up in general quite often nowadays, which I think focuses in on one part of reality (again: it has an effect, not disputing that), in order to explain away other parts of the dynamic at play.

So, there's several problems with that, but just the basic ones, which get more complicated when it gets to the details about the whole "how".

"An inside job" has a lot of ambivalence, and everyone can put into it their own interpretation. There are indeed some indications, that reports of something like it potentially happening were not properly followed up on, for example. And it's almost certain, that some of the Saudis that helped finance and support Al-Qaeda at that time also indirectly managed to gain money from the US - but there is no indication that any of it would have been on purpose for this. Both phenomena are very easily and fully explainable, by just miscalculations in Realpolitik and loss of control of a situation that was not taken to be that bad. The US was still riding high on feeling invulnerable after they became the sole Superpower with the dissolution of the USSR, so, underestimating threats makes sense there too. None of this would qualify for "inside job", in my opinion, but the term is ambivalent enough, that people can throw it around easily and move goalposts.

Then there is the logistics of maintaining und setting up a conspiracy like that. Iran-Contra, a much simpler conspiracy, was easily uncovered. Powell later lying about WMDs in Iraq was easily uncovered. Watergate, a super simple conspiracy in comparison, was uncovered. The sheer amount of people necessary to be in the know for setting up 9/11 as an inside job is ludicrous. It also gets the "Moon landing was fake" - problem. Just as with the Moon Landing, where the USSR would have had both means and reason to present irrefutable evidence, there were several international intelligence agencies, that could not have missed such an operation being set up, and would have had a motivation to weaken the US's standing in the world with irrefutable evidence. Investigative journalism could have produced at least solid evidence, yet all I have ever seen was really, really weak and not estimates shared by experts. (e.g. the whole "jet fuel steel beams" situation, where people simply ignored, that jet fuel, and other material, burns easily hot enough for steel beams to lose their structural integrity.)

Speaking of Powell lying about the WMD situation earlier: That clearly illustrates, that to further the imperialist agenda of the US, they would not have needed something so elaborate and risky. And oh boy, is something like this risky. Sure, there are no moral qualms with the US even back then before the even more blatant shifts that happened since. Especially US intelligence agencies would have had no issue killing US citizens, if they believe it to be in service of a "higher goal", e.g. imperialist influence expansion, tightening of surveillance and the bottom line of capital accumulation. But this is not just about the morality, this is about feasibility, necessity and the ability to control a developing situation. Because, no, there was no guarantee of this panning out the way it did, especially considering that if it really had been a conspiracy, proper leaks would have been almost inevitable with the amount of people you need to involve and sources you need to control and eyes that would be on the event (both journalists and hostile intelligence agencies).

The fact that they had to weirdly pivot to Iraq with said lies about WMDs and such, is also a good indicator of how unprepared but opportunistic they were about it. If planned out as an inside job, why not immediately choose to include more trails leading to Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda? Also: If planned as a pretence for tightening surveillance and starting a war, why do something so complicated and grand? Again, super risky. Why not just a redo of the WTC bombing in the 90s, maybe with a staged event and some people lured into it dead. That would be enough to whip people up if utilised with a prepared dis-info campaign on top. This way, they did a highly costly (not just in lives) move, that was all too complicated to do reliably without people finding out, and with a real risk that it could have shaken up the bottom line of people, too. All while scrambling to create an interpretation that suits their goals, instead of just creating an event, that already has that interpretation baked in.

The scale and weirdness about it is also, why so many truthers then add strange additional motivations, like "satanic human sacrifice" to the events, which I hope need no further refutation. Even the obscene enjoyment of "being able to break the rules" while in power as a psychological phenomenon, does not at all explain the overall dynamics at play - it's easy to see how that looks with the current president, or e.g. Saudi decadence of the ruling class.

So lastly, my question is: What is it, that makes you and others so emotionally invested, that it seems crazy to you, not to believe that it was an inside job? Because, I agree, they would have had no moral qualms, but to believe that, I don't need the event to have been an inside job, there is so much shit in actual history, that more than explains it. So why the focus on these grand narratives of conspiracy? The two main reasons I have found are: Fear of the actual chaotic nature of politics and history, where there is a genuine lack of control, even no control by some nefarious agents, or personal reasons, like disbelief about how friends and family gulped down the jingoism and nationalism Flavor Aid after the events, suddenly ignoring the fact that torture is now not only done in secret, but shamelessly discussed in the open, no mask necessary - and them suddenly accepting pretences for war, they would have at least been somewhat dubious about earlier. But for that to happen, it did not need to have been an inside job at all.

And my wall of text doesn't even touch on many other details of the more out-there stuff, like claiming "there were no planes" or other shit. All of which get more and more complicated and usually pretty wild in how they are attempted to be put into a conspiracy narrative.

I don't know about the "no real life effects". As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-"truthers". It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.

Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-"manosphere" before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens' roles historically, claiming they were "privileged" in ways they objectively weren't turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.

I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there's usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.

That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is "totally destroying the opponent" is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.

Not the person you asked, but at least the automatic deposit machines I know need them to be somewhat bottle-shaped and with a printed on code on the lable readable. But I still crush those, and blow into them afterwards, to get them roughly into shape, if I need to return them. But for single-use bottles as described in the OP post, crushing all the way.

WHY? Is gravity not fast enough for you? Do you enjoy the crinkly noise?

Yes, and yes. I also occasionally enjoy the feeling of it slushing with force into my mouth (insert innuendo here). It's a mix of basically a kind of stimming, and the fact that I am genuinely really fast at drinking stuff - helped me win some drinking games, too, when I was still drinking alcohol in my youth.

Also, crinkling them up after the fact makes them take less space in the trash, in addition to feeling satisfying to do.

Good that they provided both the Emperor penguin and human penguin for scale.

Sure:

https://lemmy.world/post/30376256 should work for you.

!opensource@lemmy.ml - should work for anyone that isn't defederated, it should be the top post at the moment there.

Ah, they have made an official post on here, will remove my post of the link so the attention won't get split up.

I think you are underestimating that some skills, like reading comprehension, deliberate communication and reasoning skills, can only be acquired and honed by actually doing very tedious work, that can at times feel braindead and inefficient. Offloading that on something else (that is essentially out of your control, too), and making that a skill that is more and more a fringe "enthusiast" one, has more implications, than losing the skill to patch up your own clothing or calculating things in your head. Understanding and processing information and communicating it to yourself and others is a more essential skill than calculating by hand.

I think the way the article compares it with walking to a grocery store vs. using a car to do even just 3 minutes of driving is pretty fitting. By only thinking about efficiency, one is in risk of losing sight of the additional effects actually doing tedious stuff has. This also highlights, that this is not simply about the technology, but also about the context in which it is used - but technology also dialectically influences that very context. While LLMs and other generative AIs have their place, where they are useful and beneficial, it is hard to untangle those from genuinely dehumanising uses. Especially in a system, in which dehumanisation and efficiency-above-contemplation are already incentivised. As an anecdote: A few weeks ago, I saw someone in an online debate openly stating, they use AI to have their arguments written, because it makes them "win" the debate more often - making winning with the lowest invested effort the goal of arguments, instead of processing and developing your own viewpoint along counterarguments, clearly a problem of ideology as it structures our understanding of ourselves in the world (and possibly just a troll, of course) - but a problem, that can be exacerbated by the technology.

Assuming AI will just be like the past examples of technology scepticism seems like a logical fallacy to me. It's more than just letting numbers be calculated, it is giving up your own understanding of information you process and how you communicate it on a more essential level. That, and as the article points out with the studies it quotes - technology that changes how we interface with information has already changed more fundamental things about our thought processes and memory retention. Just because the world hasn't ended does not mean, that it did not have an effect.

I also think it's a bit presumptuous to just say "it's true" with your own intuition being the source. You are also qualifying that there are "lazy/dumb" people as an essentialist statement, when laziness and stupidity aren't simply essentialist attributes, but manifesting as a consequence of systematic influences in life and as behaviours then adding into the system - including learning and practising skills, such as the ones you mention as not being a "bad thing" for them to become more esoteric (so: essentially lost).

To highlight how essentialism is in my opinion fallacious here, an example that uses a hyperbolic situation to highlight the underlying principle: Imagine saying there should be a totally unregulated market for highly addictive drugs, arguing that "only addicts" would be in danger of being negatively affected, ignoring that addiction is not something simply inherent in a person, but grows out of their circumstances, and such a market would add more incentives to create more addicts into the system. In a similar way, people aren't simply lazy or stupid intrinsically, they are acting lazily and stupid due to more complex, potentially self-reinforcing dynamics.

You focus on deliberately unpleasant examples, that seem like a no-brainer to be good to skip. I see no indication of LLMs being exclusively used for those, and I also see no reason to assume that only "deep, rigorous thinking" is necessary to keep up the ability to process and communicate information properly. It's like saying that practice drawings aren't high art, so skipping them is good, when you simply can't produce high art without, often tedious, practising.

Highlighting the problem in students cheating to not be "properly educated" misses an important point, IMO - the real problem is a potential shift in culture, of what it even means to be "properly educated". Along the same dynamic leading to arguing, that school should teach children only how to work, earn and properly manage money, instead of more broadly understanding the world and themselves within it, the real risk is in saying, that certain skills won't be necessary for that goal, so it's more efficient to not teach them at all. AI has the potential to move culture more into that direction, and move the definitions of what "properly educated" means. And that in turn poses a challenge to us and how we want to manifest ourselves as human beings in this world.

Also, there is quite a bit of hand-waving in "homework structured in such a way that AI cannot easily do it, etc." - in the worst case, it'd give students something to do, just to make them do something, because exercises that would actually teach e.g. reading comprehension, would be too easy to be done by AI.