Become a Red Hat employee and you get one for free.

(genuinely, I know this sounds like a joke)

“Agree with me, or see a psychiatrist, or you’re an actual NPC” is an exceedingly shitty debate tactic.

Enjoy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Critique

I don’t accept “I know I am” as any form of proof toward any introspective qualities, whether that is sentience or consciousness or even free will. I also don’t accept “I just know it” as proof of any deity or higher power, or that there is an objective morality embedded in the universe, etc.

I’ll stop responding here, because I think we are just not going to make any progress with each other. Your posit that you can just tell the difference and know it, is fundamentally incompatible with my stance that there must be some method or technique to distinguish what the difference is. I simply do not know that I am the same person today that I was yesterday - I feel that I have good reason to believe that I am, but I also accept that this might simply be an illusion because of the circumstance of having woken up with memories that lead me to that conclusion. I have no way to know that the consciousness that “ended” with sleep last night is really the same one that woke up this morning, outside of the apparent continuity of memory. I find it an interesting and thought-provoking question, but you may also simply decide that you know the answer by feeling.

You seem to be missing the point of the philosophical question.

Just because you feel like you are the same conscious doesn’t mean you are, which is what needs proving. We need to demonstrate that we have some way to know we are a different entity without just saying “I know I am”. Is it enough to have the same set of memories? Surely not, as the Star Trek thought experiment implies.

For the record I do have an inner monologue. I just also think that the notion of consciousness and what it means to “be” the conscious process isn’t as simple and clear-cut as you think it is.

When I fall asleep, the conscious being that I am right now is not going to just never wake up.

But how do you know this? That’s the root of the question.

How would you distinguish “I woke up as the same consciousness” from “I woke up as a new consciousness with an identical memory”, from the first person perspective?

One answer could be that having the exact same memories means you are the exact same consciousness. But this means that your moment-to-moment feeling of “self” is not actually intrinsic to your consciousness, since the memories alone are sufficient.

That sounds like someone who topped out with highschool level programming tried to implement a hash algorithm.

GNU Network Object Model Environment

Good translation. It is indeed "the search box", or rather "the box of search"

It's a sort of chicken-and-egg problem, also similar to the social media critical mass problem.

Creators won't move until the audience is there. Audience won't go until their favourite creators are there. Both won't move until the platform can handle the traffic, but the platform doesn't have the money to afford the required infrastructure until they have revenue coming in from large audiences…

Take a look at the global human population chart over the last few millenia. Things can seem sustainable when there are a million people on the planet. When there are 8 billion things are a bit different.

1. Website requires user to visit using particular browser
2. User refuses to use said browser
3. ???
4. No profit

Sure. And the further a fork diverges from upstream the more difficult maintenance becomes. My point is that relying on the open source model to fork projects making hostile changes only works so long as the community is actually able to maintain the fork(s), and so long as those forks actually have a reasonable chance of being adopted. It’s equally important, if not even more important, to try to ensure these large projects steer in consumer friendly directions than to react and fork to try to remove anti-consumer features.

Google has enough market and mind share that they can push this and it’s a real risk of becoming an anti-consumer standard regardless of any attempts to maintain a fork.

So what do I think we, as a body of users of the Internet, should do? Simple. Stop using Google Chrome and any other Chromium based browsers. Google has the ability to push these changes and make them defacto standards (and later, codified standards) because we collectively give them the power to by using Chromium downstreams.

“Just” fork it. Right.

It’s a massive undertaking to maintain a fork of something that large and continue pulling in patches of later developments.

Not to say that Brave doesn’t have the resources to do so - I really don’t know their scale - but this notion of “just fork” gets thrown around a lot with these kinds of scenarios. It’s an idealistic view and the noble goal of open source software, but in practical and pragmatic terms it doesn’t always win, because it takes time and effort and resources that may not just be available.

Was that meant to rebut the idea that Meta wants to federate with other ActivityPub services? The fact that Google did the same thing with XMPP, gained user share, then defederated once they achieved critical mass - classic EEE?

Are they using an off the shelf ActivityPub implementation (if so, which?) or just implementing the protocol themselves? If it’s the latter, which I expect it is, then implementing the protocol does not save development time or effort. It’s just a set of specifications that they decide to conform to, rather than doing things some other way that may better suit their business goals.

1. Why bother implementing a federated protocol if the intent is not to federate?
2. Don’t you think Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp has the experience to build a social media network without implementing ActivityPub? If federation is not a goal, why constrain yourself to building something that fits into that network?

True of single player, campaign-focused games. Not really the expected outcome for games focusing on the online multiplayer experience.