thepiggz

Interesting take. I like the light philosophical bend there with the mental value. I think you’re right about that. I have been more considering whether the cumulative data of a platform like Lemmy as a whole is something that we as the users/server should be asserting our ownership of. Or, whether it is effectively worthless.

Agreed it would be trivial for Meta to obtain the posts. But I think the concern of most people here isn’t Meta obtaining the posts, it’s Meta monetizing them through ads and training. Would it not be in our best interest to try to prevent this?

Agreed. It would be nice if joke comments could continue to find a happy home in joke communities. I’m not really in it for the laughs most of the time.

Excellent. I appreciate the update and the fix!

Interesting perspective. Yet, server admins actually do have control over who they federate with. People do have control over what servers they use. Why not exercise this control?

My understanding is that one can post things publicly online but still retain rights, including distribution rights in certain jurisdictions.

I don’t think it is out of the question that the fediverse as a whole could make some decisions going forward that would make it more difficult for Meta (or other official corporations) to monetize the things we post with ads in their clients or through training of predictive models.

I feel your frustration. Hang in there though. Perhaps there is a way to combat it.

An interesting thought. I’m not sure this is entirely true though in many jurisdictions. It is clearly possible to post something on someone else’s server and still maintain ownership of it. Platforms like SoundCloud have you specify a license in the ui client at the time of upload. While this might seem performative, it is explicit.

Thanks for sharing. I honestly was wondering how people were thinking about this. I was wondering why not include a license specified per post in the client UI as that seemed quite explicit. Yet, I was wondering how this might prohibit federation from being controlled at the server level.

I had considered ads in clients and llm training. Both of which, people in need should be paid for if it is using content they generated if at all possible.

Might we easily make it more clear that the poster or the server owns them outright?

Hypothetically, a corporation federates and wants to monetize my posts. Can they do this? I’m not personally fixated on ownership (which could easily be viewed as my systemic privilege), but the pathway out of this type of thought in general doesn’t seem to be yielding all power to already powerful growth-based corporations. I didn’t create the current systems, but I do acknowledge their existence.

GPT4 rewrite:

Title: Optimizing TypeScript: Embracing Functional Patterns and Leveraging V8's Strengths

Body:

Hello TypeScript Community! Our journey in TypeScript development benefits greatly from a deeper understanding of JavaScript's core mechanics and the V8 engine's optimizations. It's become increasingly clear that JavaScript, and by extension TypeScript, subtly discourages traditional object-oriented (OO) programming in its built-in functionalities, favoring functional programming paradigms instead. Combining this with V8’s optimization techniques can significantly enhance our code's performance and readability.

1. Functional Over OO in JavaScript's Built-ins:

   • Function References in Core Functions: JavaScript's built-ins, like addEventListener, setTimeout, setInterval, and array methods (map, filter, reduce), prefer function references over objects with expected methods. This design choice subtly favors functional programming over OO.
   • Closures for State Management: Instead of passing around shaped objects or using bind, closures provide a more natural and efficient way to maintain state in functions, aligning well with JavaScript's functional tendencies.

2. Understanding and Utilizing V8's Optimizations:

   • Leveraging Hidden Classes and Inline Caching: Consistent object property initialization helps V8 create and reuse hidden classes efficiently, optimizing property access. Inline caching improves performance by optimizing repeated property and method access on objects.
   • Best Practices for V8 Optimizations: Avoid dynamic changes to object shapes and focus on writing monomorphic code to aid V8's optimization processes.

3. Adapting to Functional Programming in TypeScript:

   • Functional Patterns for Performance: Embrace functional patterns, such as immutable data and pure functions, which V8 optimizes more effectively than complex class hierarchies.
   • Using TypeScript Features for Functional Code: TypeScript's powerful type system, including interfaces and type aliases, supports a more functional style of coding, which is inherently more aligned with V8’s optimization strategies.

4. Moving Away from Classic OO Patterns:

   • Challenges with OO in TypeScript: The behavior of this, complex inheritance structures, and the awkwardness of bind highlight the incongruities of OO patterns in TypeScript.
   • Functional Techniques as Solutions: Opt for closures and composition over inheritance. Utilize functional programming constructs to create more modular, reusable, and efficient code.

In conclusion, by understanding the inherent functional leanings of JavaScript and TypeScript, and by aligning our coding practices with V8’s optimization techniques, we can write more efficient and maintainable TypeScript code. This approach not only capitalizes on the language’s strengths but also ensures our code is primed for optimal performance by the V8 engine. Let's continue to explore and embrace these functional paradigms and share our insights on leveraging V8's capabilities in TypeScript development.

This is such an odd title to an article. Is the fallacy ever a good thing? The fallacy itself is a concept - so not really good or bad. Using it as a logical premise in an argument is recognized to be problematic.

Are we actually asking: is ever good to keep doing something you yourself hate only because you yourself already spent money on it? The answer seems clearly to be no.