Any precedent for language agnostic behavior (I genuinely don’t know)? Would be keen to have a common interface that languages implement into their standard libraries or keywords
Java historically has had so many logging frameworks it needs logging framework adapters to deal with the problem that in any significant program you will end up with dependencies that log in incompatible ways :/
It probably has the most complex and messy logging story of any language - but at least the solutions are very mature at this point.
I prefer Log4J2 built-in JSON Template Layout to Logback's various JSON output solution.
The API of Log4J2 and SLF4J v2 are similar enough that it does not matter for basic usage, I don't see the benefit of SLF4J in a project that's already using Log4J2.
Also commenting to reiterate that if one spends just a little time (with an open mind) in any of the camps (X/Mastodon/Bluesky, whatever) its just so obvious that while the messages differ, the behaviors are exactly the same.
In most contexts we prefer consensus - its just more energy efficient! Your brain is going to expend more energy critically listening and rewiring thoughts when new evidence is presented. Its hard even for the best of us.
Pillarisation from a modeling perspective is interesting. I wonder if that could be codified at a legal level, and then anyone running for public positions of power would be required to have their own media algorithms curated by the public.
plenty of places in America could have far better public transportation than they do. Take the Bay Area vs Switzerland
Size: Switzerland 15,940 mi², Bay Area 6,966 mi²
Population: Switzerland 8.85 million, Bay Area 7.76 million
So given that, the bay area is twice as dense as Switzerland
Miles of train tracks: Switzerland 3,241 miles, Bay Area ~300 miles?
SF Bay Area has a bay, Switzerland is all mountains so it's not like Switzerland is particularly easier to cover in public transportation
Plenty of other places in the USA could be covered in trains. LA for example used to have the largest public transit system in the world. It was all torn down between ~1929 and ~1975. A few lines have been created since but, the problem in the USA is, except for maybe NYC and Chicago, public transportation is seen as a handout to poor people instead of the transit the masses use like most saner places. (Most cities in Europe and Asia). Getting it back to that point seems nearly impossible. Building one track at a time, each taking 10-20 years with Nimbys fighting them all the way means the density of tracks always is too small to be useful, and so no usage.
is there a statistic that can show us the density distribution? my intuition says that the bay area would have a pretty gradual slope (people living mostly everywhere of mostly low density), whereas Switzerland would have lots of areas mostly uninhabited while having a few high concentration cities.
looking at the two respective largest cities: Zurich is about twice as densely populated as San Jose.
this has a huge impact on public transit viability.
I'd argue they show the bay area can sustain far more trains than it currently has.
If you check a Swiss train map you'll see they cover tons of tiny cities.
It's true that Zurich is more dense than San Jose. Some would suggest that's part of the problem. San Jose is less dense because it's missing the public transportation and therefore everyone needs a car, everyone needs places to park that car when shopping, working, sleeping. Everyone is driving to the city so lots of large roads are needed for the cars and so everything expands into car infrastructure. Public transportation enables urban density.
I have, and everywhere people use public transit, it’s far more expensive or tedious to use a nice, big car. The houses, driveway, garage, and parking situation are inferior to those of 90% of the US, where you can easily take a Ford F150 or full size SUV almost anywhere you want.
Cars need space. Walking and bicycling (and public transit) need density. The environment for optimizing for each of those is completely opposite.
And once a person has invested in a car (the car itself and a home with enough space to store the car), and they use that car on a daily basis to commute to work or drop the kids off at school, they will be very unlikely to support taxes to pay for public transit, something they will almost never use, since they are already leaving the house in a car, they are going to do all their errands while out in a car.
And also have the best bike infrastructure in the world. I wonder how the average car miles driven per year compares between the Netherlands and, say, the US.
You also need law and order. Years ago living in Toronto, I stopped taking transit when the crazies started getting on the train along with the innocent commuters.
Absolutely loved TVQ. The insight about mitochondrial DNA inheritance being exclusively from the mother, thus motivating female fingerprinting of male nucleic DNA for gamete viability (via courtship rituals, pheromones, plumage, etc)...
The whole thing needs a reframe. Ad driven business only works because its a race to the bottom. Now we are approaching the bottom, and its not gonna be as competitive. Throwback to the 90s when you paid for a search engine?
If you can charge the user (the customer- NOT the product) and then pay bespoke data providers (of which publishers fall under) then the model makes more sense, and LLM providers are normal middlemen, not parasites.
The shift is already underway imo - my age cohort (28 y/o) does not consume traditional publications directly. Its all through summarization like podcast interviews, youtube essays, social media (reddit) etc
I think something as important as accurate and quick search should be definitely something that people are willing to spend on. $20 / month for something like that seems absolutely a no brainer, and it should for everyone in my view.
People already spent upwards of $50 a month for the internet itself, plus they probably pay monthly for one or more streaming services. They likely pay separately for mobile data too.
Separate monthly fees for separate services is absolutely unsustainable already. The economic model to make the internet work has not yet been discovered, but $20 a month for a search engine is not it.
For me the ideal would be some form of single subscription - I'm fine with $100 / month, where whatever I use is proportionally tracked and the services I use are ad-free, orientated to bring me the content I absolutely want and nothing else. Depending on usage of all of those is how the $100 would be spread among them.
That’s a nice idea, but the entire world is used to getting their internet content for free by now. People who are willing to pay anything for websites are a tiny minority.
How do you get these high amounts for the internet?
In my country (EU) 600Mbps costs below $15 and I know that's not the most popular fee level. $100 or even $50 on the internet only (not counting video subscriptions) sounds like something too high for the vast majority around me.
I totally agree this payment pattern would work. I think the technical implementation is pretty straightforward but getting enough writers and artists to join would be difficult.
Not really. Everyone is paying monthly anyways it can just be a part of that or a surcharge on top. And I don't envision this being a mastodon thing but a "serious writing/news/art" kind of thing. Alteady there is a lot more asking of direct support online than twenty years ago. KoFi, medium subscriptions etc. I think people are open to the idea of direct sponsorship of creative people they like. The product space is there we just need good infra.
I pay for Kagi, and apparently so do many others here on HN. This, however, solves only half of the problem - publishers are not on board with the scheme, so they still output impression-optimized "content". But at least the search engine isn't working against my interests.
As the other comments point out... most things are dynamical systems that respond to chaos theory (small inputs, big divergence in output). Many of the possible states can be reduced down to two or so poles (e.g. skepticism vs acceptance vs outrage vs indifference in our potential responses)
Trying to determine when or why a dynamical system like this goes to a specific state is Sisyphean if I put a word to it.
Novelty and memes play a part as well. If skepticism propagates faster around an idea (say Penrose's proposal) you'll get uncritical thinkers parroting. Same thing happens for the acceptance of ideas that often have no basis in reality.
This is probably one of the better descriptions of forum interaction (mid-size and up - ie past the point where you recognize some meaningful percentage of handles in any given thread)/social media that I have ever read. Much better said than my sibling comment!
It does seem like there are often strange attractors (loosely speaking), steady-states, collapse states etc that the heterogenous commenting population display organically.
I also really like that description of forum interaction. Sisyphean it might be to get to the bottom of it all, but isn't this the sort of thing marketers spend a pretty penny to attempt to accomplish? One could prepare a battery of A|B tests around articles covering a ceratin concept, change things like time of post, quality of formatting), maybe space them out over the course of a year to avoid repetitious exposure, and see which pole the comment base gravitates to.
The viability has to come from a group effort - as soon as there is a single entity running the show the economic incentives will warp or collapse the 3rd place into something different.
It's also a framing problem[1]. If we were creating an encyclopedia of ways third places are killed or aborted, centralization would definitely be a failure mode.
I'd add, the belief that projects should be financially self-sufficient and the fiscal individualistic belief that I shouldn't pay for things I don't personally benefit from.
There is a sense of fairness, that makes sense in isolation, yet have these downstream effects when applied to public goods like third spaces. "Kids are always on their phones," and "Youth programs and parks should be financially self-sufficient" are downstream contradictions of the primary belief.
What single entity did you have in mind? An HOA will spend dues on parks, a regular city will spend taxes on parks. A luxury apartment will have common spaces or even activities. They make these expenditures because enough residents will pay extra for it. And a church will run community events paid for by donations. No "brought to you by Carl's Jr."
Tragedy of the commons is when there's no big entity with rules, and everyone does their own thing.
What often happens in these small community organizations is one or two volunteers join and begin to do a bunch of work to "transform" the organization and expand its reach. They inevitably become "indispensable" to the new organization, which they have wrapped around themselves like a cloak. Then they squeeze it around themselves until everyone leaves and the organization's soul has been sucked out. They move on to other organizations in the same area with a "resume" or "bio."
You'll often see these people everywhere in your community, and they may approach you very quickly to get you involved in their organizations. They are in constant need of new volunteers to burn out on their pet projects. They also constantly promote themselves and are always telling you about what they are doing with other organizations both to recruit you and to make sure everyone knows how "indispensable" they are.
These people are poisonous to community organizations because they will not abide any consensus-driven process that doesn't lead to agreement with them.
Not sure about the resumé part, but I've seen these authoritarian volunteers. They still don't ruin everything. And I think my local church has enough of them that they cancel each other out :D
They don't ruin it every time, but I've seen it happen and have also seen the end result and I'm very leery of specific kinds of people in communities I'm new to because of it.
The biggest defining factor is they have a lot of spare time to push dumb agendas and don't listen to people who have less time to deal with it. I'm not sure what a techbro is, thought it was just a techie who goes to the gym.
There are definitely fancier HOAs with bigger and nicer parks and common spaces than the others, and I don't think it's because they have different city rules.
HOA style commons solutions means a city becomes thousands of micro, private, exclusive spaces.
Perhaps better than everyone sitting in their homes getting amazon deliveries every few hours.
but this isn't what people mean when they say public community spaces. We need interconnectedness across income, ideology, generation, education, etc, for stable democracy.
reply