I mean, just set the limit to a ridiculously high number then? I’m not aware that Lemmy has any in-built limits, but I could be wrong.

I believe that Mastodon instances with limits only link to external posts that exceed the limit, they don’t display the whole post.

Of course you can always run into network limits if you get huge posts, but that applies to everything and doesn’t have anything in particular to do with Mastodon.

Isn’t character limits an instance setting?

Anyone got experience with every.org compared to Liberapay? Been pretty happy with liberapay myself, just curious.

Eh rust still has issues in some domains, e.g., when cyclic data is appropriate

This might be but then again I’ve been writing Rust for several years and have yet to actually run into this problem. The borrow checker definitely places certain restrictions on what kind of stuff you can do (for good reasons!). Once you know how it works, your brain starts writing the code in advance to fit how the borrow checker likes it and it becomes second nature and a total non issue.

Of course this is part of the reason Rust has a bit of a learning curve, which is fair. But any good sophisticated tool meant for professionals requires proper training and knowledge.

Eh, as funny as this is, I can’t agree that programming peaked with Java. In fact, much of this is just a rant about JavaScript, not about much else.

VSCode can easily do cross-file renames if you write Rust. Rust is kind of peak programming if you ask me, and it’s modern and still new. I don’t feel programming has peaked yet tbh.

What sort of symptoms do you have from the low levels of T, if you don’t mind sharing?

This kinda erodes cultural differences between different communities though. Different communities may have very different approaches on how to talk about a post. I feel like this approach just leads to monoculturism.

Finally someone who gets it. This “problem” is in fact a total non-issue. Different groups talk about the same thing all the time. This is good, not bad.

the conversations should be combined

Disagree. As OP points out, there is value in separating the discussions as well.

My somewhat hot take is that design patterns and SOLID are just tools created to overcome the shortcomings of bad OOP languages.

When I use Rust, I don’t really think about design patterns or SOLID or anything like that. Sure, Rust has certain idiomatic patterns that are common in the ecosystem. But most of these patterns are very Rust-specific and come down to syntax rather than semantics. For instance the builder pattern, which is tbh also another tool to overcome one of Rust’s shortcomings (inability to create big structs easily and flexibly).

I think you’re completely correct that these things are dogma (or “circlejerking” if you prefer that term). Just be flexible and open minded in how you approach problems and try to go for the simplest solution that works. KISS and YAGNI are honestly much better principles to go by than SOLID or OOP design patterns.

With Linux, I can change just about everything. If I want a real-time kernel, I can switch. If I want a different desktop environment, change. If I want more control from my keyboard, Linux has my back.

As much as I agree with the sentiment of the article, this is a terrible reason and more likely to scare people away from Linux rather than get them to install it.

If you know what a “real-time kernel” is, you’re probably already using Linux and you are a highly technically literate user. Any “normal person” user is going to look at that and think “Oh, I guess I need to understand technobabble in order to use Linux”. Normal users care about easy, preset defaults, not customization.

Once again, Linux adoption is kneecapped by its own users, who forget what normal people really care about.

As much as “instance drama” can be a bit tiring, I think it might be an inevitable outcome and shouldn’t necessarily be seen as completely bad. My thinking is that instance drama would not occur if all the instances were similar, and that would be bad. As it is, there are actually differences among the instances and that’s good - some disagreements due to those differences is inevitable.

Now, it would be good if we could agree to disagree and still be friends… but that also moves into the paradox of tolerance. But I would say most instances have nothing strongly against each other, despite any differences in moderation or rules or approach. The Pareto principle applies too… probably 20% of the instances are responsible for 80% of the drama. If you don’t like the drama, try avoiding those 20% of instances 😅.

Are you sure? Far as I heard, it’s not really “fixed”, they just replaced the part with a new one and that’s it. They still haven’t fixed the actual issue as far as I know.

It sounds like that would require unifying the architecture of all fediverse platforms, which nobody is interested in and very much goes against the point (decentralization). Right now all of these platforms are written independently, with unique architectures and different programming languages.

Suffice to say that, while it’s a nice thought, what you’re proposing is not really realistic, nor is it actually desired.

Matrix is not part of the fediverse, so that’s kind of a special case and doesn’t work the same at all as the rest.

What you describe sounds very simplified, but let me assure you that there is nothing simple about this problem (I say that as a software engineer that has studied ActivityPub, the protocol underlying the fediverse).

It feels like they could all be part of one unified platform.

They are. It’s called the fediverse.

There’s no reason why any of these software options couldn’t support all the same stuff, as you say. But so far they have chosen not to.

Maybe another option will come along one day that supports more of it at once.

This is like requiring people to read a specific text book before they vote in real life elections. I hope you can see the problem with that.

Wait, you’re going to federate whether a user clicked on a link between instances?

That seems kinda too far. I would not want other instances to know what I have or have not clicked. That’s a level of surveillance I’m not comfortable with and I fear how that data might be abused.

Tbh I wouldn’t even want my own instance to track what I click

How would you know for remote users?

Let’s apply quality control on upvotes, so any post can get only 20 upvotes till it gets a specific amount of comments then the limit could be pumped up to 40 upvotes till it gets more comments, etc…

Ultimately this is just limiting ways that people can vote. Voting is the democratic way to sort posts. I don’t think you can limit without ultimately influencing the system in unintended bad ways, since that will restrict how people can vote. Just let people vote.