Yes, I don't think it's just about the execution of Win32 code, but also the possibility of MS using marketing techniques and dirty manipulation methods to give themselves advantages within the Windows platform to sway the general public to their store in a similar manner as how they push their browser, their MS Teams communication platform, their One Drive Cloud Storage, their search engine, their data-collection tech, their assistant, etc.

Only if they use it the same way and within the same context. But isn't that what always happens when a new gaming system/idea explodes and clones start poping up? I don't think that matters much, in fact competition might actually be a good thing.

The article talks about how they are ok with using AI for things outside generating images, texts and so. For example, they are fine using the rudimentary AI of any typical enemy in one of their games. So I expect procedural generation that does not rely on trained bayesian network models is ok for them.

It looks like they just seem to be concerned about the legality of it... so they might just start using it as soon as the legal situation for AI models is made safe.

This.

I don't understand the appeal of microblogging. The content is generally very low quality, the signal-to-noise ratio is horrible... I'm not interested in the shower thoughts of any particular individual ...or in marketing stunts.

The only individuals I'm interested on are my family & friends, and even for them I'd rather use a more private platform.

And when I want to read a public post I'd rather it's well thought and ideally not restricted by micro-limitations. Even better if it's curated by a public voting process among a community of people with my same interests, or some other process that makes it so I don't have to waste my time going through tons of content I'm not remotelly interested on.

I expect it would be technically possible to have lemmy-like or peertube-like services built on top of the AT protocol Bluesky uses, like with ActivityPub. And I expect if/when that happens the communication across services would probably work too.

In fact, accounts being "portable" in the AT protocol can potentially make the integration more seamless across different services, not only might the posts be seen from different services, but you might be able to directly access those different services with the same account. Imagine if you could login in lemmy with a mastodon account or vice-versa.

Bluesky is just one of the possible services. But as long as the invites are private and you can't host your own instance, I wouldn't even consider it an alternative. I think it's a bit early to judge, both its positives and its negatives.

I don't think EVERYONE needs to understand / know about it. I mean, I remember when I was young most people had no idea how to use the internet (hell, they didn't even know how to program a VHS), yet I was perfectly happy using that technology.

I only need a specific set of people and specific communities to be there for it to be worth it. Like I said: I no longer use reddit, even though the fediverse has only a small fraction of the content existing in reddit... I would have expected people in the fediverse would be more receptive to unpopular but technologically/ethically superior alternatives.

Yes, but the question is: what does matrix need to establish itself as a solid alternative?

You can't answer that by saying "people don't use it, change that" because that's something only people can change, not matrix, that'd lead to a cyclic problem.

Specially when that's given as a counterpoint to justify not wanting to do the change for "this community". It's contradictory to want its popularity to be changed but accept the lack of change alone as a valid reason to justify your communities not changing.

There are plans for Matrix to move to P2P someday... I wonder what would happen in that case. Or if we just used https://tox.chat/

Would the regulation apply at all when it's just a protocol used between the users, with no intermediary or central server offering the service?

I think part of the reason why the long extension is often preferred is because it's much clearer and it's guaranteed to be supported and decompressed by the respective tools. Even when they don't suppot tar archives, they'll just give you the uncompressed tar in that case.

It's also very common to do that with other extensions (not just .tar) when compressing big files. For example, when archiving logs they'll often be stored as .log.gz, which makes it automatically clear that it's a log file directly compressed with gzip and meant to be examined with tools like zcat and zless to view it.

And in cases like that you really need it to be clear on what data does the gzip stores, since it does not keep metadata about the file so you might not be able to get back the original name/extension of the file if you rename the gz file.

You can grow potatoes for political reasons too. Everything a human being does might be politically motivated, but that doesn't mean potatoes are political.

Anyone can take that same software, that was created as a particular political statement, and use it for the completelly opposite political reasons to make a completelly different political statement. Just the same way as many have used songs in contexts that are completelly politically opposite to what the original author of the song intended.

In the end, the only thing that's political is the goal/purpose/motivation of an action, not the result of the action. No piece of software/hardware/thing is political when you dettach the artist from the art and just see it for what it is, regardless of what the author might have wanted you to see it as.

Nonsense video, underlying problem is monopolies and private companies who develop the standards, not what browser you use.

It's the other way around. Which browser you use is what directly determines whether monopoly and private companies develop the standard you use.

You could write a standard independently of those companies, but then if everyone chooses to use browser engines from companies that don't follow it, what's the point?

If everyone uses a particular browser then whatever that browser implements becomes the standard. It's all about what browser you use.

If the standards are fully open, transparent and not concerning then it would make no difference if you use chrome and firefox because everyone would use same basis.

If what you want is everyone using the same basis, then what you need is to get everyone to use the same browser engine (which is what is happening already).

However, focusing on that is likely to not result in it being "fully open" as long as the popular browsers are not interested in openness (in particular with a MIT-licensed basis that is allowed to be privately altered, extended and corrupted in proprietary forks by those popular browsers who don't have to be "transparent" on what exactly they changed).

If what you want is for it to be "fully open", then you'd want people to be more careful and choose a browser with a "fully open" basis, instead of using whatever is more popular. It's still all about what browser you use.