For me the bigger value is not in the quality difference between the two platforms. And don’t get me wrong, i agree that BlueSky is a lot better than Elon’s Twitter, but not as good as a decentralised Fediverse Platform.

The real positive is in the act of migration itself, because it shows that is still a possibility. So hopefully it proves sustainable.

I think it boils down to “No opinion” not meaning “no consequences” or “no responsibility”.

Franchises and ensemble casts really skew those results. So in the end it basically just comes down to “who was part of one or more large franchises” (primarily marvel), which to me is not that interesting.

For me it would be much more interesting which actors brought the most “value” to a variety of unconnected movies, which would probably boost someone like Leonardo DiCaprio much higher, and in return throw out a bunch of actors from the MCU. For example Don Cheadle, who is on the list because he replaced Terrence Howard as War Machine. Which might have been the right call and an improvement, but imo don’t do the recast and you could swap those names on the list, because i don’t think he majorly shifted the franchise (unlike somone such as RDJ). Recast Leo and who knows how his movies would have performed with someone else in the lead.

Not sure how an alternative ranking should work, but maybe take either the first/average/highest grossing movie of a movie series instead of adding all up.

Thanks for adding another source with some more context

The issue is that as someone already mentioned i doubt something like that was ever truly on the table.

I think you can’t give assurances like that in a vacuum. If a nation e.g. the US would grant them, they’d only do so while simultaniously building up a physical presence in the territory and possibly also do deeper integrations military wise. You wouldn’t give such strong assurances while weakening your own ability to act on them.

For Russia that would have never been acceptable.

Since I see this claim constantly: where in the Budapest memorandum did they promise protection?

Looking at the Wikipedia summary nowhere does anyone give security assurances similar to NATO article 5 or the even stronger worded mutual defense clause article 42 TEU of the EU. The closest it comes to is in the fourth point, but that is only in the case of nuclear weapons being used. Which obviously hasn’t happened yet. Beyond that it is just a promise not to attack, which Russia has broken, but every other singator has kept. And as far as I can see it does not contain anything that compells others to act on someone else’s breach.

(disclaimer that this is purely my impression from what i’ve seen mentioned online, not firsthand knowledge)

Which isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I was under the impression that the problems have more to do with high workloads and work environments that are chronically understaffed, not necessarily because of low salaries. Not claiming that all nurses are payed well, but it seems like that at least in the US there is a somewhat reasonable path to making good money (assuming you are willing to switch jobs and maybe continue to get sought after qualifications along the way).

That makes sense. I can definitely see consulting work paying top dollar in many different professions.

But that seems to me like she has carved out a lucrative niche for herself, which wouldn’t scale as advice for a larger number of people. Whereas with the other professions you can probably make good money even just doing more “regular” work.

Physical therapists, nurses and people that went into trades I can see making good money, but social workers I am kind of surprised to hear. I thought those were for the most part not paid as well compared to how taxing their jobs can be.

Thanks, i wasn’t aware of that option and will definitely try to use it occasionally. Although having an option like that and having a default mechanism that pushes posts back to the top still probably still have different effects.

I actually think all the posts talking about the size of communities, amount of memes on the frontpage and so on are wrong, since those will naturally change over time and are not fixed.

Every platform will see changes in their user base to some degree. Reddit now is very different to Reddit 10 years ago. The same thing will happen to Lemmy: If growth continues we will see more engagement in niche communities, but also more low effort posts and reposts.

Considering it doesn’t do anything fundamentally different to reddit in the way of being a content aggregator with comment section it will be a similar experience. It would be different if it e.g. had a function to make older posts resurface and stay relevant longer to foster longer conversations, or structure comments differently since right now the further down a chain you go, the less people will engage with it.

Even if the average user doesn’t care about open source or federation, they’ll still benefit (and suffer) from the consequences.

On a centralised platform like Reddit you are beholden to their will for better or worse, and incentives might change over time such in their case with taking investor money and going public. This can have consequences such as forcing out third party software (one of the events that brought a lot of people here), but also censoring specific content or taking away powers from moderators.

There are downsides to it, since smaller, less professionally run instances might disappear at some point or have less reliability. But The upside is the option to choose and the resilience that should things change at one instance/community, you can switch without having to leave the whole ecosystem. And for that you do not have to be a moderator or volunteer

The existence of different instances also to some degree helps identify users to some degree, the obvious choice being political instances like hexbear.

The average user is not looking for NSFW

That’s an assumption i’ll challenge. Looking at the amount of porn on the internet, the average person most definitely is looking for it. But that is probably a bit offtopic.

Is YouTube doing it with small creators actually in mind? Who knows, other than them?

I am pretty confident in guessing that they are not doing it for selfless reasons. Imo the reason is that the less information they give the user, the more you are beholden to the algorithm choosing for you.

But depending how they hide it it actually might not just be users, but also companies that e.g. buy ads from them. The less information they get, the more they need to trust whatever metric google offers them

How is 1€/day cheap for such limited home Internet? I guess it might depend on where you are, but unless you are in the middle of nowhere that seems expensive.

Here in Germany for example, which really isn’t known for its cheap internet, I can find options that offer 100Mbit Flatrates for 20€/month.

That was my initial thought aswell, but after thinking about it I changed my opinion to preferring the simple majority.

Imo one of the deciding factors is how you think about it. Do you see it as a choice between two conscious actions (acceptance or active rejection), or is only the “yes” vote an active choice and “no” something of a “natural” state?

Also if you set hurdles for change to high, then you are potentially hindering progress and systematically favoring conservatism. Which isn’t always bad, but the status quo and how things were done in the past aren’t always sustainable and worth the advantage.

I wish it would become standard to report these things not as a single number, but as yearly increases paired with the contract duration. That would make it much easier to put them into context, and compare them to other deals or inflation.

Just the number alone without context can also be straight up misleading. I remember that when train personel went on strike here in Germany, I saw some articles comparing the demand and offer by just mentioning that single number, and they seemed fairly close. Well, one was over 2 and the other over 3 years, making them massively different in practice.

The concept you are describing is called Innovator’s Dilemma and imo the most recent example for it happening is with legacy car manufacturers missing the ev transition, because it would eat into their margins from ICE. But i am not sure if this is a good example for it.

However imo it seems like a great example for what Steve Jobs describes in this video about the failure of Xerox. Namely that in a monopoly position marketing people drive product people out of the decision making forums. Which seems exactly the case here where the concerns of an engineer were overruled by the higher ups, because it didn’t fit within their product segmentation.

I think it was slightly ahead of it’s time and had terrible marketing. At least here in Germany it was marketed as “Dredd 3D” at a time where the hype had died down, and probably turned into the opposite due to all movies getting unnecessary and poorly made 3D conversions.

Fdroid has automatic updates since this year.

Agreed. Reusing the same set of hyped actors across films definitely reduces the level of immersion. Unless ofc the actors can truly transform themselves like Colin Farrell in the new Penguin series to give a recent example.

I think the issue is that nowadays the job of actors in big movies like these is just as much being a vehicle for marketing as it is the acting itself. I’ve heard that the rule of thumb is that Hollywood spends a similar amount on marketing as it does on production. So you want someone with a household name that people recognize, that people associate with a type of movie they like, and that can tour through the media circus and talks shows creating buzz.

Plus it helps with acquiring financing.

So as much as I’d want to see more fresh faces (and more normal people, not the unrealistic Hollywood standards), I doubt it’ll happen.

Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.