This is what doesn't get discussed enough around htmx, in my opinion. So much of the difficult steps are left for the templating system, and template systems aren't great in general. You need to track a lot of identifiers for htmx to work properly, and your template and view logic needs to make that make sense. For the templating systems I've seen, that's not so simple to do.
1000% this. I actually am using htmx at ${JOB} and this is essentially the only downside to htmx. I want to know which template partial is getting swapped. My IDE doesn't know. I need to track countless html ids to know what will be swapped where... how? It hasn't been a big deal because I alone write the frontend code so I have all my hacks to navigate and my intimate knowledge of the code, but if we need more devs on the frontend, or if the frontend drastically grows feature wise, i will need to tackle this issue post haste. I think template partials could help, but then we also would end up with giant template files and that would also be annoying.
I like a lot of things about Elixir but I struggled with what felt like clumsy IDE capabilities. Stuff like 'go to definition' that I use all the time in other languages didn't work right. Lack of strong types makes autocomplete problematic. I've started to mess around with Gleam hoping that it spans this gap because I want to like this ecosystem.
Has this changed recently? When I was on Twitter a few years ago I often missed posts from my friends because the algorithm didn't show them to me. Same when I posted, often my friends didn't see it.
So tired of this take. There are so many frontends, besides just the built-in interfaces for Mastodon, Misskey, Pleroma there's also web-based frontends like Elk and Enafore, and tons of different native apps on mobile.
I'm having trouble following, because the biggest instance would be the 'One Obvious Choice', but that choice seems lame to you? What could federated services do that would make the obvious choice not feel lame?
The decision isn't really that massive, a lot of users have alt accounts on different servers and it's not that difficult to migrate between them.
> it's not that difficult to migrate between them.
If you've never used the fediverse before, you don't really know that, do you? I've heard of the "move your account" functionality before, but I don't really think until today I had anyone say to me, "Look, don't worry too much about which server you choose to start out with -- just pick one, because it's super-easy to switch later if you want to try a different one."
> What could federated services do that would make the obvious choice not feel lame?
I admit this is an inconsistency on my part, and probably only limited to people a lot like me: on the one hand, the whole promise of federation is that you can avoid massive centralization; so joining the One Biggest Instance seems kind of pointless. On the other hand, I don't want to join a random small instance which may not be well-maintained; and I don't want to join an instance which is going to pigeon-hole me ("A mastodon instance for developers!" "A mastodon instance for Christians!").
There are different parts of my brain that all want different things, each of which vetoes any particular decision. But this is very much what the "paradox of choice" is about: in many cases, having more options makes you less happy.
I do think it was good that Mastodon embraced this in a way that earlier federated options didn't (e.g., I believe at some point diaspora stopped new sign-ups to their main instance to "encourage federation"; from my perspecitve it encouraged was people to go elsewhere.)
So "what could federated services do better" to solve the paradox of choice? Nothing as far as I can tell -- if you want more choice, you're going to have the paradox of choice; Mastodon at least has already done the only thing I can think of which mitigates it somewhat.
> I don't really think until today I had anyone say to me, "Look, don't worry too much about which server you choose to start out with -- just pick one, because it's super-easy to switch later if you want to try a different one."
I think that's fair, the resources around joining don't make this particularly clear. Part of the problem is that 'Mastodon' as an organization is not very invested in making this widely known, they would rather people stick with the easy choice because they run mastodon.social. For people who are already on the network it's pretty well understood.
I do think there's a paradox of choice issue going on and I can understand why that makes it more intimidating to try it out. One thing that I wish was more widely known is that you can just create an account on multiple servers. If you're not sure you'll like the vibe of a server, create an account and try it, you can either migrate that account or delete it if you decide that server isn't for you. I hope this perspective might make people feel more curiosity and less decision paralysis, it's not a problem to have alt accounts.
>> I don't really think until today I had anyone say to me, "Look, don't worry too much about which server you choose to start out with -- just pick one, because it's super-easy to switch later if you want to try a different one."
> I think that's fair, the resources around joining don't make this particularly clear.
It's also not actually super-easy to switch later.
Bluesky has a 300 character limit, Mastodon has 500, non-Mastodon ActivityPub servers have a configurable limit. Mastodon can render markdown, has subject lines which are commonly used as content warning tags, can translate posts. It supports custom emoji and non-Mastodon ActivityPub servers support custom emoji reactions. Bluesky has more discovery features like community-curated lists and algorithmic suggestions of who to follow.
Partially true, but vanilla Mastodon does hardcode it at 500. Some forks make it configurable (I believe glitch-soc does), and some admins have edited the hardcoded value manually.
I think fediverse offers a decent compromise here which is that people can self-host an instance for other people to use. Some of the longest running instances have a few hundred users or maybe a thousand. So if one in 300 people is interested in self-hosting then they can support the other people who either don't have the skills or don't have the interest. It's not perfect but it's working pretty well for those servers.
This point is confusing to me because there are so many clients available. Not only in different projects (Misskey/Firefish/Sharkey, Akkoma/Pleroma, glitch-soc), but also from the various compatible clients in the web and mobile (Elk, Semaphore/Enafore/Pinafore, Ice Cubes, Fedilab). Many instances also tweak their frontend to make UX adjustments, which is a lot more difficult in closed source projects.
Sabine seems to believe any intellectual darkweb-esque argument she hears as long as it makes her feel heterodox. Her coverage of autism, transgender issues and capitalism were embarrassing.
All of those are prone to highly emotionally charged reactions. Whether she is right or wrong, there would have been strong reactions, and therefore (in a bayesian sense) the strong reactions give you no information about whether she's right or wrong.
We can tell an argument is rational when it upholds existing power structures and diminishes people who are already marginalized. They're probably just complaining because being marginalized upsets their emotions.
Funny you mention this because I have a child with (severe) Autism and with so much misinformation out there about Autism I was blown away that her video about this topic was so spot on and incredibly well researched. In particularly she nailed the so called "neurodiversity movement" and its many problems it causes quite well.
I only saw some of the "capitalism is good, actually" video and was horrified at how ideological it was. It was Prager-U level propaganda. She seems to fall in line with a few popular physicists (like Neil Tyson) who display chauvinist tendencies in their knowledge of everything that is.
I had always heard that part of the problem with tobacco smoke is that it's radioactive. Whereas marijuana smoke isn't. So it's still smoke but not nearly as carcinogenic?
If tobbaco smoke was radioactive then the cigarettes would have been radioactive (you don't make a material radioactive just by setting it on fire) and would have caused a health hazard for stores employees.
