I suppose the loss they are referring to is that they fumbled and dropped their cool mystique at a critical moment. How can you put a price on that? ...

Or perhaps they are talking about an accumulated loss. They're basically out there flipping and fumbling coins all day - and after the latest one they've lost the equivalent of $30000 in total.

Free food, but confined to a tiny unchanging living space where your entire purpose is to be observed by others; vs no free food, but more person freedom. Which do you think is better?

There is some misleading information in there. Probably better to just get straight to the point with the 'standard' https://joinmastodon.org/ link.

I'm mean life on Earth, obviously. No one is saying that the planet is going to explode or disappear or anything like that. We're talking about the climate, and life that depends on that climate.

And before you start coming at me with some "but but such and such life will still..." I'll clarify again that there is a matter of scale here. A very large number of species that have been around for a very long time will soon be extinct (many have been lost already). So although we might still have mosquitos and jelly-fish for a long time to come, a lot of the complex life that is currently enjoying a comfortable and otherwise-sustainable life on Earth will no longer be able to do so; because of us. That's what I'm referring to.

Yes, humans have does this to 'ourselves', but we are nowhere near the worst effected life in this situation. In fact, most of the ill effects on humans are just knock-on effects from other life failing. (In particular, reduced capacity to grow food is likely to be a problem for humans.)

Yeah. I've been mourning the loss of Earth's future for some time now. It's very sad.

That said, we are not in a simple binary fucked vs fine situation. It's a sliding scale. So even though things are very bad, we can always still take action to make them less bad. That is never not an option.

Using full names like that might be fine for explaining a physical rule, or stating the final result of some calculation - but it certainly would be cumbersome and difficult for actually carrying out the calculations. In many cases we already fill pages with algebra showing how things can be related and rearranged to arrive at new results. That kind of work would be intractable with full word names for the variables, partially because you'd be constantly spilling off the end of the page trying to write the steps; but also because having all that stuff would actually obfuscate what you are trying to do - which is algebra. And during that process, the meanings and values of the pronumerals is not as important has how they interact with each other. So the names are just a distraction.

For setting up an equation, and for stating the final result, the meanings of the variables are very important; but during the process of manipulating the equations to get the result you want the meanings of the letters are often ignored. You only need to know that it is something that can be multiplied, or inverted, or subtracted, or whatever. Eg. suppose I want to rearrange to get the velocity. I don't care that I'm dividing both sides by the air density times the drag coefficient and the area... I'm just dividing ρCA, which is an algebraic blob whose interpretation can be saved for some other time.

There are a few different physical systems that people are trying to build quantum computers with. Superconducting loops are one of the most promising ones, because of a halfway decent decoherence rate. And yeah, superconducts needing near 0K temperature to operate is a problem. It's just hard to scale up while everything needs to be so cold. Room-temp superconductivity would be a huge advantage.

But even then, the decoherence rates are still too high for any long quantum computation. Last I heard, the best qubits are maybe barely getting to good enough errors rates that quantum error correction would be possible - which is great, but 'possible' and 'practical' still have a significant gap between them.

So in short, basically everything about the hardware needs to be better; and its just very very hard. Probably too hard to ever achieve the dream of having arbitrary quantum computation. (But there is always the possibility of some big new idea that makes everything work better.)

I wouldn't read too much into it. Using "he" instead of "it" is a mistake that a person might make if English is not their first language. It's pretty easy to imagine that someone working on a browser would not be interesting in messing around with the pronouns in their build instructions. They made an error, and they didn't think the error was important (which in itself was another error). But it is fixed now. Surely no harm done. They were not actively trying to impede anyone's progress or deny anyone's rights, or even say anything negative about anyone at all. They simply made a mistake in their use of pronouns in their build instructions. The mistake is now fixed. And although its fair to take it as a 'warning' that maybe there are objectionable views lurking in there, it certainly is not evidence of such views. I really don't think it's fair to hang this mistake over them. I'm sure that pretty much everyone in this thread has made worse mistakes throughout their lives. I know I certainly have.

There are real problems transgender people are having, ladybird browser must be low on that priority.

Are you trying to tell me that Ladybird inadvertently referring to a computer process 'he' instead of 'it' is not a high priority problem for transgender people? What could possibly be worse? :p

(But seriously though. I find it really weird that people are still upset at Ladybird about this. I makes me wonder if there's some social manipulation going on. Like, is anyone actually upset about this, or is it just an excuse to attack the devs?)

Is this because they used "he" instead of "they" in the build instructions? ... They changed that and acknowledged the mistake. Surely that's enough. It's the fucking build instructions. I think we can probably find it in our hearts to forgive them.

[edit] Just in case people think I'm joking. I'm not. As far as I'm aware, the critical incident that that has resulted in people calling Ladybird devs anti-trans is that they wrote 'he' instead of 'they' in the build instructions. That's what caused the original outrage. And as far as I'm aware, there have been no other incidents. But please, if there is something of substance that I'm not aware of, post about it here.

We aren't talking about security though. We're talking about what information should be presented on lemmy.

Let me put it this way: have you personally ever tried to see who upvoted or downvoted a particular lemmy post? And if you did, did you talk about what you saw?

My point is that currently basically no one sees the data. The expectation is that no one is looking. And it is not socially acceptable to discuss who is voting for what. But if the votes were changed to public then everyone would see it, the expectation would be that it is common knowledge, and so obviously it will be discussed. Is that what we want on lemmy?

I'm seeing lots of comments here saying that server admins can already see vote data, and therefore it is not private.

But from my point of view, having a handful of people able to extract voting data using their position of trust on the lemmy network is very different from broadcasting voting data to everyone on lemmy. And although you can argue that it is possible to create a new server and federate and blah-blah-blah to view votes; that argument sounds to me like "don't bother locking your front door, because that type of lock can be defeated by a lock-picking tools."

And even aside from all that discussion about who can access what; there is another key point that I think is overlooked: Making voter information public makes it 'normal' thing to monitor and discuss. Currently there is an expectation that people won't look at or discuss that information (even if they hypothetically could get access). But by making it public, the expectation then is that everyone will look at that information. That would create a change in tone and meaning of votes and discussion around votes.