mudeth

I'm playing co-op, so I have one PC and manage one companion, and the other player does the same.

I don't think it's necessarily the agreement that's the problem. It's the phrase, it feels like a regurgitated meme with no original thought.

If someone said 'I agree', I would probably upvote, or leave it alone.

Fair. I was playing a warrior so combat wasn't as much an issue for me. Tbh when we were starting, someone told us to play DOS 2 instead of 1 since it's a better gameplay experience and I wonder if all these rough edges have been fixed.

Tell me more about what you disliked about D:OS. I'm playing through in co-op (in the endgame right now) and want to commiserate.

For me it was the bugs and some weird choices where things that should work to progress don't, and some progress is so convoluted that we had to look it up and we were like ugh wth.

Looking up stuff is annoying when something you're sure should work logically doesn't.

If you haven't heard, Croteam have announced The Talos Principle 2.

Since you haven't mentioned Ion Fury, I'm going to add it to that list. Not interesting for PC since they wanted PvP but it's a great Build engine shooter.

I'd argue that the nokia software is better than Samsung! It has fewer bells and whistles but that's precisely why it's better. It's stock and updates regularly.

Lenovo is pretty much the same but they don't update as regularly because they have too many devices on their portfolio.

I bought a cheap nokia tab and it is excellent for watching videos and playing non-demanding games.

Understood, thanks. Yes I did misread it as sarcasm. Thanks for clearing that up :)

However I disagree with @[email protected] in that Lemmy, and the Fediverse, are interfaced with as monolithic entities. Not just by people from the outside, but even by its own users. There are people here saying how they love the community on Lemmy for example. It's just the way people group things, and no amount of technical explanation will prevent this semantic grouping.

For example, the person who was arrested for CSAM recently was running a Tor exit node, but that didn't help his case. As shiri pointed out, defederation works for black-and-white cases. But what about in cases like disagreement, where things are a bit more gray? Like hard political viewpoints? We've already seen the open internet devolve into bubbles with no productive discourse. Federation has a unique opportunity to solve that problem starting from scratch, and learning from previous mistakes. Defed is not the solution, it isn't granular enough for one.

Another problem defederation is that it is after-the-fact and depends on moderators and admins. There will inevitably be a backlog (pointed out in the article). With enough community reports, could there be a holding-cell style mechanism in federated networks? I think there is space to explore this deeper, and the study does the useful job of pointing out liabilities in the current state-of-the-art.

It doesn't help to bring whataboutism into this discussion. This is a known problem with the open nature of federation. So is bigotry and hate speech. To address these problems, it's important to first acknowledge that they exist.

Also, since fed is still in the early stages, now is the time to experiment with mechanisms to control them. Saying that the problem is innate to networks is only sweeping it under the rug. At some point there will be a watershed event that'll force these conversations anyway.

The challenge is in moderating such content without being ham-fisted. I must admit I have absolutely no idea how, this is just my read of the situation.