Thanks, good to know!

The term predates star wars, if that's what you're thinking. Star wars got the term from actual fascist regimes. According to Google translate, they probably used the term штурмовой отдел.

Ah, I guess I didn't know they didn't have the rights anymore. Tbh I played through AW2 and didn't connect that Casey was a reference to Max Payne lol.

Heh, does Astrobot count?

What do you mean legally distinct? You know that's Sam Lake, writer and creative director at Remedy, and face model for Max Payne 1/2, both also developed by Remedy?

"I laugh in the face of ground faults!"

Oook, i was thinking at the instance moderation level, you're meaning at the software dev level.

U have two options: stop donating or suck it up and let them develop feature B.

Or fork it, add your own features, and don't break federation compatibility (activitypub? idk). But I guess we're talking specifically about features where that's not possible.

I don't know how well this would fare, because it sounds to me like you're replacing the dev lead position with a democracy/hivemind.

Like it or not, software development often follows the Pareto Principle (20% of the devs contribute 80% of the code), and IMO that happens because those 20% think of themselves as responsible for the direction of the project. They feel empowered to have a vision for the project and work towards it over time from their deep understanding of everything going on (because they are responsible for 80% of it).

I think you would effectively be subverting that position and developer mindset. No dev could ever feel that responsibility or empowerment because they aren't in control of the direction the software is going. They are at the mercy of the vote. They can't make changes with future decisions in mind because they don't have control. They might have implemented one feature completely differently if they had known the outcome of a future vote on a future feature.

Best case, people just listen to the devs expertise and let them do what they want. Worst case, the devs disagree with the outcome of a vote and the project, maybe forking it to make their own dictatorship, and a bunch of users will likely follow them.

That would be my main concern with the model, but who am I to say. Maybe it's never happened because it's inherently flawed, or maybe just no one has ever tried it. Or maybe it is happening right now somewhere and I've just never heard of it.

• I assume this new model still has instances (i.e. is federated), except that each one is somehow required (under the threat of defederation maybe?) to operate in this "worker-consumer coop" model? Or are we talking about some centralized organization that oversees all instances?
• What prevents a Lemmy instance from trying this today? It sounds like this is something you want to try out?
• What does the paid tier get you? What's the difference between the paid tier of this new system, and the donations model of Lemmy?

I think their question is, what do you mean by "secure"? Because as the saying goes for internet services: usually, if you're not paying, you're not the customer, you're the product.

The existence of this article is confusing to me. FB doesn't need to "scrape" their own site, and they don't care about whether you set your photos to public or private.

As others have said, the best option is to buy the TV you want, update it to the latest firmware, then disconnect it from the internet and use your own external devices.

This is because the companies making the best display technology (much of it proprietary) at an affordable price have no incentive to sell "dumb" variants of their TVs when the "smart" version makes them way more money.

That's a completely different genre of food. That's like someone saying "I like ring pops" and telling them "you should get an actual diamond ring, much higher quality".