Dr. jonny phd on Nostr: npub1d8l8l…dxe94 well too late it's already been wasted, were not talking about ...

npub1d8l8lrrz5nyu8a3p0ye9hcw9wljpt8ncmkx575lh2zkwxngw4j8s9dxe94 (npub1d8l…xe94)
well too late it's already been wasted, were not talking about allocation of labor.

"debunking chronically skeptical people" can be otherwise known as meeting unmet needs. as someone for whom the fedi is their primary digital home and has been for some time, my chronic skepticism of the fediverse is people who shut down every possible change from some usually unarticulated point of principle. the whole point of a decentralized communication network is that people can experiment with how it works. if you don't like it, great, block or ignore them.

and this doesn't seem like a bunch of fedi people making something to prove someone wrong, but people looking to prove someone wrong using fedi tech as an example

the second argument makes no sense. making an individual instance more resource efficient means you could make a shitload of typical sized ones as much as it means you could make one massive one. if the think keeping the fedi from centralization was masto being slow, that's a pretty weak decentralized system.

we're talking about a function-neutral increase in computational efficiency, that's not one of those "look for the hidden bad thing" moments, that's exactly the same program running faster. I didn't read to the bottom but at the top they explicitly say "we dont even think scale is necessarily a good goal, we're using mastodon as an example system to demo our framework," presumably because they knew enough about fedi to know everyone would get up in arms about it.

I don't know anything about this group and don't really care about the thing itself as much as I care about the fedi not immediately demonizing people who want to put in work on the fedi because it's not on the thing we think is the most important.