gon

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] gon@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago

It really might be your kidneys. Do you feel it in your spine or more to the side?

You could also try and do some stretches everyday.

[–] gon@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Not sure that's right.

Mind you, I fully agree with you on Bluesky, but I think Threads really isn't much different.

For example, say this integration is fully accomplished. Fediverse users wouldn't have a real reason to switch to Threads, but because Threads is a much larger platform all future users are gonna go there, and not to the rest of the Fediverse. That, already, I think is an issue. Then, because it's a bigger platform, most communities are gonna start to be populated mostly by Threads users - simply because numbers rule. The 2nd E comes into play: extend. The protocols are extended. At first, it might not be enough to switch - just some quality of life changes, maybe - but the more stuff is added, the more the experience for the Threads users - aka, the majority of the users on any given community on the Fediverse - starts to diverge from the rest of the users. Now, at this point, a Fediverse user has two choices: either ignore this, or switch. Sure, many will just ignore it - the people on the Fediverse right now are the kind of people that would tend to ignore that, anyway - but plenty won't, because it's SOCIAL media. SOCIAL! If your experience differs significantly from your peers, that will bother you, and you will want to change, especially if you're in the crushing minority.

Embrace, extend, extinguish.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong! Hopefully, even. However, I do see it happening. Hope I got my point across.

[–] gon@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago

It's only EEE if it's an entity that could be reasonable expected to do it.

Sure, Piefed could adopt ActivityPub, extend it with proprietary capabilities, and then use that to strongly disadvantage its competitors. However, Piefed is a fully open-source project without ads or any money-making aspect at all, started by some random dude from New Zealand. Not exactly prime EEE grounds, you know?

[–] gon@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago (8 children)
[–] gon@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago

This is awesome :D

[–] gon@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago

Ah, good joke I think!

[–] gon@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

You know, yeah I realized that about 30 minutes after posting, but I just felt that keeping the comment up didn't make much of a difference.

FTR, I have not watched the live-action remake because I think that live-action remakes of animation classics is cringe AF.

[–] gon@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I really liked this movie. I've watched it at least twice, since I ended up wanting to revisit it as an adult after having watched it as a child.

I think the cast of characters is really funny and interesting; I love how Hiccup developed as a character - gaining confidence as he became more comfortable around Toothless - and how the other characters recognized that he changed and accepted him.

The soundtrack is also really good, especially that one song that plays when Hiccup flies for the first time - it's called Test Drive.

[–] gon@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

LMFAO. I mean, is this surprising? Were they just trying to poach the coaches? Come on...

[–] gon@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Oh, thanks, I didn't know about that comm!

Let me know if you want to add !mediareviews@lemmy.world to the sidebar

Sure, you can add it, thanks :D

[–] gon@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

I actually decided to watch Mulan because I had been listening to "I'll Make a Man Out of You" on repeat for days! It's sooooo good!!!

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/66445706

Recently, I watched both Mulan (1998) and The Iron Giant (1999), and I feel like these movies show two extremes of animation, in a way. As such, I felt like talking about them, a little bit.

First, I'll tell you where I stand on both, individually: I think Mulan is mediocre and The Iron Giant is a masterpiece.

Maybe on the surface, both these movies might not appear to have that much in common, other than having come out at about the same time, but I think they're actually similar, in a way. They both center the idea of breaking out from a mold, of going beyond expectations and cracking open social norms, even overcoming great discrimination and severe resistance.

In Mulan's case, we have a young lady living in a world where the expectations for a woman, or rather, what the world demands of a woman is to be pretty and bear children. War is a man's business, so much so that the simple thought that a woman might participate in the war is outrageous, and the act is akin to sin and very much illegal, worthy of the death-penalty, no less.

As for The Iron Giant, we have a living weapon that chooses not to be one anymore. People aren't just wary, they're scared, and they react violently, being ready to obliterate it at a moment's notice. The army is mobilized, nuclear missiles are launched!

Our two hero's - though, in The Iron Giant's case, the protagonist is actually Hogarth, not the giant himself - both struggle and succeed in proving to the world that they're more than what they're told they are. Yet, one comes off as bland and uninspired, while the other is a magnificent cornucopia of emotional depth and intense characters.

Why is that?

Well, many things.

I'd like to highlight what I think is perhaps the most jarring difference between these two movies: the villain, or rather, the main antagonist.

In Mulan's case, that is Shan Yu, the Hun. He's violent and ruthless, as well as immensely powerful and terrifying. There, you know everything there is to know about Shan Yu. Another antagonist is the counsel of the emperor, Chi-fu. He, at least, isn't strictly evil either - he does what he thinks is right for his people - but he's also just an asshole. He's a talking caricature. A joke. He wields power, and is therefore a danger to Mulan's objectives, considering he's strongly opposed to her being in the army and being a pompous prick.

However, here's the thing with Chi-Fu: being a misogynist isn't special in this universe. Mulan's dad, while incredibly loving, also feels the same way about her being in the army. Sure, he loves her and doesn't want harm to come to her, but there's nothing in the movie that indicates he would've allowed her to go if her safety was guaranteed or something. It was simply, "not her place." Li Shang is the same! Even after Mulan saves his life, he doesn't change. Sure, a seedling of change may have been sown in his mind, but he disregards her warnings regardless.

The Iron Giant, on the other hand, doesn't have a villain. There's an antagonist, sure, Kent Mansley, but he's not evil. He's not violent, ruthless, immensely powerful, or terrifying. As a matter of fact, he's good. The government, as a whole, is also an antagonist, but it acts more as a force wielded by Kent which even then resists his misguided actions when the truth reveals itself.

The Iron Giant is set in 1957, during the cold war. People are scared - terrified, even - and Kent is no exception. We see what the kids learn in school through Hogarth, learning to hide under their desks to miraculously survive a nuclear strike... And then, an iron giant falls from the sky and starts eating cars! Kent definitely makes mistakes, and from our perspective - understanding the true nature of the giant - it seems that what he's doing is rather stupid and misguided. However, is it even? He wants to protect everyone! He just wants people to be safe, and he's a victim of the paranoia. He goes too far and lies, he exerts too much power, power he was not entitled to or ready to wield, and that led to terrible consequences, but he never aimed to harm. He wasn't a mindless, one-dimensional murderer. He was a civil servant trying to serve the public. His crime is fear and rashness.

Now, don't get me wrong. Misogyny isn't logical, so it does make sense that the character's aren't necessarily logical in their approach to it. It's about social norms, things that are taken for granted and left unquestioned. It makes sense that Mulan's struggle isn't just with the system, but with the unbending minds of those shaped by said system. However, I would mention that Mushu doesn't seem to have much of an issue with it, though he is painted as a bit of a cook and an outsider... Still, the antagonistic forces, the barriers that she overcomes are just that: they're barriers. Mindless barriers. The Iron Giant's antagonists aren't that at all, they're people. They're beings that have goals and objectives that go beyond "conquer China because me conquer" and "women weak because women."

There's a lot to both these movies, really, but that alone is enough to firmly place them on two very different tiers of animation.

Really, I found myself enraptured by every character in The Iron Giant maybe a thousand times more than any character in Mulan. Even Earl Stutz, the crazy fisherman, is more interesting than Mulan's companions. He, at least, tries to do something, instead of being comedy relief. He must have, what, 3 minutes of screen time? Maybe.

Overall, I feel like Mulan is populated by single-minded husks that sometimes say something funny and hit some notes, while The Iron Giant is a living and breathing world.

Brad Bird, I'm single.

But what do you think?


Mulan: 3/5
The Iron Giant: 5/5

[–] gon@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well, that's a complicated question.

On one hand, I do already hang-out with myself basically all the time. I talk to myself a lot and I'm my own wall to throw stuff at.

On the other hand, I'm also very antisocial. I would definitely not enjoy spending this time that I spend with myself with another, physical person.

So, that.

 

Saw this post on Reddit and thought it was interesting to see someone's experience.

I've been trying for a few months to get rid of any stuff made out of EU (even before it was mainstream lol), and here are my conclusions at the moment:

Groceries: It's pretty easy. I try to go to local stores, but if I need to go to a supermarket, I go to Carrefour, Mercadona or Froiz, all european, and I've reached to the point that EVERYTHING I buy is european (mostly spanish, portuguese, french or italian).

Clothes: This has been tricky. To buy sneakers has been more dificult than I thought it would be. There are a lot of european brands that actually make it's products in China, Bangladesh, etc., so I had to look very close. Finally, I buyed Victoria sneakers and I'm very happy with them. For shoes and boots, Pikolinos is a very good brand also. Miguel Bellido shirts are very good as well.

Furniture: Well, Ikea is the obvious choice, but I do preffer to buy on spanish and portuguese stores that also have prety good quality for a good price, like Lufe.

Sports: Only sport that I play is climbing, and my last pair of climbing shoes are Tenaya Ra, and I couldn't be happier with them. La Sportiva has amazing products also, being italian and as far as I know, still manufacture in Italy.

Technology: Oh man, this is a pain... I don't want to throw away my iPhone 13 mini until it's done, but when the time comes, I don't know if there are going to be any alternatives. Fairphone, probably, but the components are also from China, right? And anyway, I will struggle with a big phone, which I hate. In PC I can move from Windows to Linux, but the mayority of the PC parts would be made in USA.

Good news is that the only USA page that I actually visit is Reddit, as I don't have Instagram, facebook or any other social media. Bad news is that it will be virtually impossible to leave Whatsapp.

Well, this is it, I guess that all of you are struggling with the same, being the technology the real issue, cause the rest is pretty easy to find alternatives even better.

My faith in Europe has risen since few months back, and I hope it's not too late for us to being able to compete in this new world that is emerging, where if you depend on any way on USA or China, you're lost.

A hug from Spain to all of you, european brothers. And sorry for my poor english.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/57576884

There's so many ways to interact with the Fediverse. The most popular, by far, seems to be Mastodon, but Lemmy, Misskey, and Pixelfed are also relatively popular. Kbin used to be popular, but it has apparently been abandoned, and is mostly dead at this point.

I recently learned that Mbin is a thing, checked it out, and it looked really cool! Has anyone used it? How different is it from Lemmy? I hear they have better integration with Mastodon.

What Fediverse services do you actually, regularly use?

For me, it's mostly Lemmy, though I do hop on Mastodon every now and then.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/57576884

There's so many ways to interact with the Fediverse. The most popular, by far, seems to be Mastodon, but Lemmy, Misskey, and Pixelfed are also relatively popular. Kbin used to be popular, but it has apparently been abandoned, and is mostly dead at this point.

I recently learned that Mbin is a thing, checked it out, and it looked really cool! Has anyone used it? How different is it from Lemmy? I hear they have better integration with Mastodon.

What Fediverse services do you actually, regularly use?

For me, it's mostly Lemmy, though I do hop on Mastodon every now and then.

 

There's so many ways to interact with the Fediverse. The most popular, by far, seems to be Mastodon, but Lemmy, Misskey, and Pixelfed are also relatively popular. Kbin used to be popular, but it has apparently been abandoned, and is mostly dead at this point.

I recently learned that Mbin is a thing, checked it out, and it looked really cool! Has anyone used it? How different is it from Lemmy? I hear they have better integration with Mastodon.

What Fediverse services do you actually, regularly use?

For me, it's mostly Lemmy, though I do hop on Mastodon every now and then.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/57380534

The Warriors have been doing really well since the Jimmy trade. They're 9-2. That's very, very good.

Here's the thing: in that stretch of games, they faced exactly 0 (zero) actual contenders. By actual contenders, I mean OKC, the Nuggets, Boston, and Cleveland. The closest things to a contender they faced were the Mavs, the Knicks, and the Bucks, but the Bucks didn't have Giannis, they went 1-1 against the Mavs without AD and they're cooked regardless, and well the Knicks were actually good and got blown out. That is to say, I'm unconvinced.

You see people talking about how Steph's been unleashed by Jimmy, which might be fair


he has been playing really well, regardless of whether that can be attributed to Jimmy or not


but misses the point, at least in part. Has he been playing well against fuckass OKC? Because, quite frankly, if they can't beat Shai, it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.

Steph needs another ring, Jimmy needs a ring. Anything outside of a championship is a failure for this season. Time is running out, and I just don't see this team performing at a high enough level to get there. I say this with a pained chest, of course, but they just aren't good enough.

I know, I know, shocker. Nobody's really walking around saying that the Warriors have a shot at the big-one, so it's not like I'm providing revolutionary analysis here, but it does frustrate me to watch this.


I'd also like to talk about NBA nicknames. I've always thought nicknames are one of the coolest aspect of NBA fandom; the joker, king James, chef Curry... These are iconic. They make watching the games that much more fun. Recently, the NBA has underwent a bit of a nickname renaissance, so to speak, seemingly on the back of "The Anomaly," referring to Jayson Tatum. It's not a bad nickname, as far as nicknames go, but it doesn't fit at all. It's a brilliant example of undeserved glazing, if anything. However, people have taken it in stride and started developing nicknames for other, sometimes mostly irrelevant NBA players.

My favourite ones so far are "The Trolley Problem" for Santi Aldama, and "The Ad Hominem Fallacy" for Jalen Green. I've tried looking it up, but I have no idea why Jalen got stuck with that, which makes it even funnier. They're so ridiculous, like Santi's, but mostly they're comprehensible. The idea is that Aldama presents a moral dilemma to the defender. Not bad, not bad... But I think that the sheer absurdity of a nickname as incomprehensible, nigh undecipherable, as Jalen Green's pushes it over the top of great into legendary status.

I saw a comment on a TikTok where the nickname "The Butcher" for Draymond Green was advanced. It pointed out how the Warriors have a chef, a butcher, and a butler. That's just perfect.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56619187

More than meets the eye, again and again.

At first, things seem quiet and unremarkable. A cliché premise, cliché developments, cliché characters... Actually, things didn't seem quiet and unremarkable at all; Re:Zero seemed boring and uninteresting. More of that ever-pouring slop Japanese webnovels insist on becoming, more of that persistent stench of mediocrity and the unbridled numbness of barren creativity.

Re:Zero is just more of the same old, same old.

At first...

But, at first, even the normal is strange. Even as we're born, we cry. We're confused, lost, terrified as the world that we now take for granted assaults our senses and wrecks our mind and body alike. Voices endless, smells, feelings, all of it is so much---too much! What makes life beautiful aren't the large pieces that we all have in common, but the small distinctions that make us unique. One would assume death is the same, of course.

All one can do is assume death is the same. That is, of course, except for Natsuki Subaru.

Re:Zero throws us into the typical isekai fantasy world---it even tricks us for a bit!---but pretty soon we understand that that's not the case at all. Natsuki Subaru doesn't die. Or rather, he dies and is then reborn. He gets to try again. That's what Re:Zero is about.

What if you could try again? What if your biggest failures were erased and you had a do-over?

As a premise, this is brilliant. It's not the first time I've read a time-travel story with a somewhat similar outline---shout-out to Mother of Learning---but Re:Zero is unique enough from within what I've read to trigger that novelty factor.

The cast is extensive and varied, including several of the traditional isekai tropes while continuously subverting them in some of the most creative ways possible. Even Subaru himself, the MC, is a subversion of the typical isekai MC. He reminds me of Kazuma from KonoSuba, actually, at first.

That's always the point, isn't it? At first, at first, at first... There's always more than meets the eye.

If that was all that Re:Zero was, it would be enough to make for a good story. However, Subaru is faced with the flip-side of his condition: he loses all the good parts too. The pain, the suffering, the despair that dripped from the pages when he loses everything was at times so overwhelming I actually had to take a breather. It's like the Witch's miasma bled through the screen and seeped into my eyes---that's the only reason I cried, of course...

What if you had to choose? What if you could try again, but even then you failed?

The ever-growing pressure of his mistakes digs into your heart and crushes your very soul, I'm telling you. Seeing him come to terms with how much he's lost and watching him gather the courage to keep going... It's beyond fantastic.

My biggest gripes with the novel are the following:

  • The translation is mediocre and littered with errors;
  • Subaru does too much talk no jutsu.

Still, it's not a big deal. I'm used to reading webnovels, so reading a poor translation isn't a significant problem; I just expected more. Subaru's incessant yapping can get frustrating at times, but I can rationalize it by saying that, well, if he dies, he can just try something else. When it works, it's hard to say that that wasn't the best option so... I can't really complain... I just don't like it that much. Let it be known, though, Re:Zero isn't just Subaru's yapsesh; he very much works! He tries, and fails, and tries, and fails, and he tries again. He tries everything he can think of. What I love most, perhaps, is that he doesn't get random power-ups like you see in other series. He gets stronger by failing and learning. He improves slowly by trial and error. It's really satisfying to see him figure things out!

The world is getting more and more complex by the volume, by the chapter, by the page really. By Volume 15, it felt like the world had grown ten-fold, both geographically and lore-wise. It's so complex and enticing with so many mysteries to dive into. I can't wait to learn more.

I mentioned the extensive cast already, but there's really no reason not to bring it up again. There isn't a single character I dislike in this whole thing. There are characters that are very much despicable, yes, but there aren't any of those cliché "bad because they're bad" or "good no matter what" characters. Every character is either extremely complex, with believable and deeply emotional motivations, or simply not developed enough to tell just yet. After all, there's so many characters but only so many pages to talk about them. I don't think that's to the detriment of the narrative in the slightest, though.

Really, the only character I actually have sincere gripes with is Subaru himself! Specifically in regards to his choice of heroine. He's wrong, and I'll stand by that. He's the only character in the whole series whose motivation I question. You'd think this would be a big deal, but it really isn't. He's an idiot, an irredeemable moron. That's what makes his story so compelling: we get to see an irredeemable moron turn into a somewhat redeemable moron, little by little, life by life, death by death.

Is this the greatest masterpiece of the 21st century? The century isn't over just yet, but it's in the running; I'll tell you that much.

What do you think?


Rating: 5/5

Read on Witch Cult Translations!
Disclaimer: I read the Light Novel version of Re:Zero, not the WCT webnovel translation.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56496251

I'd like to add to suggest a couple of things regarding Mastodon and user onboarding/retention.

The Server Selection Problem^TM^

The single biggest problem with Mastodon adoption is the fact people see talk about a server and give up. As such, servers need to be removed from the conversation and onboarding process. A server still needs to be selected for a new user, however, which raises the question: How should we select a server for a new user?

The obvious solution is to simply direct users to mastodon.social, which is actually what Mastodon already does to a certain extent. The issue with this is that the Fediverse is meant to be decentralized. As such, it's counterproductive to funnel people towards a single server. This causes maintenance bottlenecks and privacy/data-protection concerns.

Mastodon's landing page.

As such, there needs to be some sort of method that ranks servers based on a few factors in order to select the optimal server for any given user, while keeping the decentralized nature of the Fediverse in mind.

Why any server?

First, it's important to answer the question of why would any given user pick any given server.

Generally speaking, the server isn't a big deal, as in, any server allows users to interact with the whole of the network in its full capacity.

All servers are Mastodon, after all.

However, there are differences. The most significant ones are, I'd say: location, uptime, and language.

A user benefits from being registered to a server that's geographically close to them, as that leads to a better connection. Additionally, servers with high uptime and stability are preferred, as users may have different times they use the server and nobody likes to try and access a server and see that it's down for any number of reasons. Finally, users need to be able to understand the language the server is in (obviously).

I believe these three factors should be at the forefront of the decision-making process for deciding what server to be suggested to any given user on sign-up.

Auto-selector

With that, comes the solution: a server auto-selector. A game I play, DCSS, actually does something similar for online play.

DCSS server selection (I have my location turned off and there are very few servers, as you can see, so listing them is trivial.)

This isn't exactly a novel scientific breakthrough, but I think it's a significant notion for helping the onboarding process for new Mastodon users.

A server auto-selector should filter servers to suggest by following these steps:

  • Detect the user's system language.
  • Detect the user's location.
  • Calculate the server's uptime score.
  • Pseudo-rank user-count.

I believe the first two points are self-explanatory. Being that Mastodon (and the Fediverse, in general) stands firmly against data-harvesting, location data should probably not be mandatorily collected. It should be easy to either ask the user for some vague information or simply allow them to skip this step entirely, even if it might affect the user experience. Additionally, there's the issue that many servers don't make it known where they're hosted. Ideally, this could change to facilitate server selection for the users, but there's always the point that, if a server doesn't say where it's hosted, it gets pulled down by the algorithm, which in turn encourages divulging that kind of information; this might a problem solved by the solution, if you get my meaning.

What I mean by uptime score is simply an evaluation of the server's uptime history. For example, it's not good policy to direct users towards servers that are often unavailable, it might be disadvantageous to direct users to servers with too-frequent downtime for maintenance, and so on. As such, the server auto-selector should calculate a sort of "score" for any server that fits the first two points. I can't say how this should be calculated, exactly, but I'm sure some computer-knowers out there can come up with a less-than-terrible methodology for this.

The last point is something that I think should be taken into account as well, regarding the user-count of the servers. As I mentioned, we can't funnel users towards a single server, but another issue is that we should actually encourage user dispersion over many servers. The outlined method might already do this to a sufficient extent, but I suggest doing some sort of randomization of filtered servers based on user-count. I think it's wrong to simply plug a new user into the least-populated server around, but I do think that over-populated servers, in a relative sense, should be discouraged by the server-selector.

Worst case scenario, a random server that passes the uptime score point can be selected for any new user.

The onboarding experience

Basically, this should be as simple as possible. The more questions need to be answered, the worse.

I think a simple "Join Mastodon" button is the best. Just a big blue button in the middle of the homepage.

Server selection should start as soon as the new user accesses the joinmastodon website, and clicking the button simply redirects the user to the sign-up process for that server.

I believe this approach would increase adoption of Mastodon by streamlining the server selection process, as well as help the continuous decentralization of the Fediverse.

The Feed Problem

Another significant issue with Mastodon is the feed and community/discovery aspects.

Creating a new Mastodon account yields... Nothing. An empty feed!

New account, empty feed.

This is absolutely terrible and ruins user retention. I've had several people tell me that this first-experience emptiness completely turned them off from Mastodon. It's not intuitive, and it needs to be corrected.

A simple solution

Mastodon does have feeds, but they're all tucked away in the Explore and Live Feeds tabs.

I think the single biggest change that Mastodon can make, as far as this goes, is to shift the Explore->Posts feed to the Home tab. Just do it like Twitter or Bluesky, make the discovery feed the first thing a new user encounters.

That, by itself, should make a difference in terms of user retention.


Maybe I'm delusional and severely underestimating how doable this is, but I really believe Mastodon needs to change the way it deals with new users if we want it to actually grow into a strong social media, keyword social (it needs people).

Thoughts?

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56496251

I'd like to add to suggest a couple of things regarding Mastodon and user onboarding/retention.

The Server Selection Problem^TM^

The single biggest problem with Mastodon adoption is the fact people see talk about a server and give up. As such, servers need to be removed from the conversation and onboarding process. A server still needs to be selected for a new user, however, which raises the question: How should we select a server for a new user?

The obvious solution is to simply direct users to mastodon.social, which is actually what Mastodon already does to a certain extent. The issue with this is that the Fediverse is meant to be decentralized. As such, it's counterproductive to funnel people towards a single server. This causes maintenance bottlenecks and privacy/data-protection concerns.

Mastodon's landing page.

As such, there needs to be some sort of method that ranks servers based on a few factors in order to select the optimal server for any given user, while keeping the decentralized nature of the Fediverse in mind.

Why any server?

First, it's important to answer the question of why would any given user pick any given server.

Generally speaking, the server isn't a big deal, as in, any server allows users to interact with the whole of the network in its full capacity.

All servers are Mastodon, after all.

However, there are differences. The most significant ones are, I'd say: location, uptime, and language.

A user benefits from being registered to a server that's geographically close to them, as that leads to a better connection. Additionally, servers with high uptime and stability are preferred, as users may have different times they use the server and nobody likes to try and access a server and see that it's down for any number of reasons. Finally, users need to be able to understand the language the server is in (obviously).

I believe these three factors should be at the forefront of the decision-making process for deciding what server to be suggested to any given user on sign-up.

Auto-selector

With that, comes the solution: a server auto-selector. A game I play, DCSS, actually does something similar for online play.

DCSS server selection (I have my location turned off and there are very few servers, as you can see, so listing them is trivial.)

This isn't exactly a novel scientific breakthrough, but I think it's a significant notion for helping the onboarding process for new Mastodon users.

A server auto-selector should filter servers to suggest by following these steps:

  • Detect the user's system language.
  • Detect the user's location.
  • Calculate the server's uptime score.
  • Pseudo-rank user-count.

I believe the first two points are self-explanatory. Being that Mastodon (and the Fediverse, in general) stands firmly against data-harvesting, location data should probably not be mandatorily collected. It should be easy to either ask the user for some vague information or simply allow them to skip this step entirely, even if it might affect the user experience. Additionally, there's the issue that many servers don't make it known where they're hosted. Ideally, this could change to facilitate server selection for the users, but there's always the point that, if a server doesn't say where it's hosted, it gets pulled down by the algorithm, which in turn encourages divulging that kind of information; this might a problem solved by the solution, if you get my meaning.

What I mean by uptime score is simply an evaluation of the server's uptime history. For example, it's not good policy to direct users towards servers that are often unavailable, it might be disadvantageous to direct users to servers with too-frequent downtime for maintenance, and so on. As such, the server auto-selector should calculate a sort of "score" for any server that fits the first two points. I can't say how this should be calculated, exactly, but I'm sure some computer-knowers out there can come up with a less-than-terrible methodology for this.

The last point is something that I think should be taken into account as well, regarding the user-count of the servers. As I mentioned, we can't funnel users towards a single server, but another issue is that we should actually encourage user dispersion over many servers. The outlined method might already do this to a sufficient extent, but I suggest doing some sort of randomization of filtered servers based on user-count. I think it's wrong to simply plug a new user into the least-populated server around, but I do think that over-populated servers, in a relative sense, should be discouraged by the server-selector.

Worst case scenario, a random server that passes the uptime score point can be selected for any new user.

The onboarding experience

Basically, this should be as simple as possible. The more questions need to be answered, the worse.

I think a simple "Join Mastodon" button is the best. Just a big blue button in the middle of the homepage.

Server selection should start as soon as the new user accesses the joinmastodon website, and clicking the button simply redirects the user to the sign-up process for that server.

I believe this approach would increase adoption of Mastodon by streamlining the server selection process, as well as help the continuous decentralization of the Fediverse.

The Feed Problem

Another significant issue with Mastodon is the feed and community/discovery aspects.

Creating a new Mastodon account yields... Nothing. An empty feed!

New account, empty feed.

This is absolutely terrible and ruins user retention. I've had several people tell me that this first-experience emptiness completely turned them off from Mastodon. It's not intuitive, and it needs to be corrected.

A simple solution

Mastodon does have feeds, but they're all tucked away in the Explore and Live Feeds tabs.

I think the single biggest change that Mastodon can make, as far as this goes, is to shift the Explore->Posts feed to the Home tab. Just do it like Twitter or Bluesky, make the discovery feed the first thing a new user encounters.

That, by itself, should make a difference in terms of user retention.


Maybe I'm delusional and severely underestimating how doable this is, but I really believe Mastodon needs to change the way it deals with new users if we want it to actually grow into a strong social media, keyword social (it needs people).

Thoughts?

 

I'd like to add to suggest a couple of things regarding Mastodon and user onboarding/retention.

The Server Selection Problem^TM^

The single biggest problem with Mastodon adoption is the fact people see talk about a server and give up. As such, servers need to be removed from the conversation and onboarding process. A server still needs to be selected for a new user, however, which raises the question: How should we select a server for a new user?

The obvious solution is to simply direct users to mastodon.social, which is actually what Mastodon already does to a certain extent. The issue with this is that the Fediverse is meant to be decentralized. As such, it's counterproductive to funnel people towards a single server. This causes maintenance bottlenecks and privacy/data-protection concerns.

Mastodon's landing page.

As such, there needs to be some sort of method that ranks servers based on a few factors in order to select the optimal server for any given user, while keeping the decentralized nature of the Fediverse in mind.

Why any server?

First, it's important to answer the question of why would any given user pick any given server.

Generally speaking, the server isn't a big deal, as in, any server allows users to interact with the whole of the network in its full capacity.

All servers are Mastodon, after all.

However, there are differences. The most significant ones are, I'd say: location, uptime, and language.

A user benefits from being registered to a server that's geographically close to them, as that leads to a better connection. Additionally, servers with high uptime and stability are preferred, as users may have different times they use the server and nobody likes to try and access a server and see that it's down for any number of reasons. Finally, users need to be able to understand the language the server is in (obviously).

I believe these three factors should be at the forefront of the decision-making process for deciding what server to be suggested to any given user on sign-up.

Auto-selector

With that, comes the solution: a server auto-selector. A game I play, DCSS, actually does something similar for online play.

DCSS server selection (I have my location turned off and there are very few servers, as you can see, so listing them is trivial.)

This isn't exactly a novel scientific breakthrough, but I think it's a significant notion for helping the onboarding process for new Mastodon users.

A server auto-selector should filter servers to suggest by following these steps:

  • Detect the user's system language.
  • Detect the user's location.
  • Calculate the server's uptime score.
  • Pseudo-rank user-count.

I believe the first two points are self-explanatory. Being that Mastodon (and the Fediverse, in general) stands firmly against data-harvesting, location data should probably not be mandatorily collected. It should be easy to either ask the user for some vague information or simply allow them to skip this step entirely, even if it might affect the user experience. Additionally, there's the issue that many servers don't make it known where they're hosted. Ideally, this could change to facilitate server selection for the users, but there's always the point that, if a server doesn't say where it's hosted, it gets pulled down by the algorithm, which in turn encourages divulging that kind of information; this might a problem solved by the solution, if you get my meaning.

What I mean by uptime score is simply an evaluation of the server's uptime history. For example, it's not good policy to direct users towards servers that are often unavailable, it might be disadvantageous to direct users to servers with too-frequent downtime for maintenance, and so on. As such, the server auto-selector should calculate a sort of "score" for any server that fits the first two points. I can't say how this should be calculated, exactly, but I'm sure some computer-knowers out there can come up with a less-than-terrible methodology for this.

The last point is something that I think should be taken into account as well, regarding the user-count of the servers. As I mentioned, we can't funnel users towards a single server, but another issue is that we should actually encourage user dispersion over many servers. The outlined method might already do this to a sufficient extent, but I suggest doing some sort of randomization of filtered servers based on user-count. I think it's wrong to simply plug a new user into the least-populated server around, but I do think that over-populated servers, in a relative sense, should be discouraged by the server-selector.

Worst case scenario, a random server that passes the uptime score point can be selected for any new user.

The onboarding experience

Basically, this should be as simple as possible. The more questions need to be answered, the worse.

I think a simple "Join Mastodon" button is the best. Just a big blue button in the middle of the homepage.

Server selection should start as soon as the new user accesses the joinmastodon website, and clicking the button simply redirects the user to the sign-up process for that server.

I believe this approach would increase adoption of Mastodon by streamlining the server selection process, as well as help the continuous decentralization of the Fediverse.

The Feed Problem

Another significant issue with Mastodon is the feed and community/discovery aspects.

Creating a new Mastodon account yields... Nothing. An empty feed!

New account, empty feed.

This is absolutely terrible and ruins user retention. I've had several people tell me that this first-experience emptiness completely turned them off from Mastodon. It's not intuitive, and it needs to be corrected.

A simple solution

Mastodon does have feeds, but they're all tucked away in the Explore and Live Feeds tabs.

I think the single biggest change that Mastodon can make, as far as this goes, is to shift the Explore->Posts feed to the Home tab. Just do it like Twitter or Bluesky, make the discovery feed the first thing a new user encounters.

That, by itself, should make a difference in terms of user retention.


Maybe I'm delusional and severely underestimating how doable this is, but I really believe Mastodon needs to change the way it deals with new users if we want it to actually grow into a strong social media, keyword social (it needs people).

Thoughts?

1
Thoughts on TiaCorine (soundcloud.com)
 

I found out about her after her feature on Denzel. I'd heard some of her songs before randomly but never got curious enough to look her up until her verse on HOT ONE.

Her music sounds a bit samey IMO, but her talent is undeniable; she's got flow, lyrics, and charisma. Also... She's newgen, no denying that.

I strongly dislike the majority of mainstream fem rappers out right now (Cardi B, Megan, Sexxy Red) but I think Tia has some gems.

Thoughts?

Give No Fuck

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/16511176


Dumb fun!

TikTok has been repeatedly and forcefully shoving GTA gameplay-attached clips of the movie Tag (2018), directed by Jeff Tomsic, down my throat. Perhaps my watching of this modern masterpiece is symptomatic of my as of now undiagnosed Stockholm syndrome, and a direct consequence of an easily influenceable mind. Regardless of my personal psychological shortcomings, this movie is surprisingly good.

I came in with VERY LOW expectations, but turns out it's just dumb fun. Ed Helms, Jon Hamm, Jake Johnson, and Hannibal Buress (hunk alert, wee-oo) all delivered good performances if you close your eyes, plug your ears, and pretend you're watching another movie, that is. Jeremy Renner and Isla Fischer, however, did actually pull off some pretty nice scenes. They didn't overplay the slow-motion shots, and I think they were pretty humorous. The action was well-choreographed and creative.

After the movie was over, I started immediately scouring the internet for self-hypnosis techniques in order to forget the incredibly odd Rashida Jones love-triangle arc. I was unsuccessful, but I believe I can keep on living through the sure-to-come recurring nightmares of bad, senseless plot lines.

The main plot, on the other hand, was decent. Nothing too special, but it's a whimsical concept! Really, isn't that what movies are all about?! ^(No.)^ Regardless, knowing it was based on a true story made it way more fun for me than it otherwise would've been, and the constant suspicion of basically anything Jerry did was very funny, IMHO.

At the end of the day, I think a relatively short movie that makes me laugh and occasionally flashes some cool visuals is worth watching.

What do you think?


Rating: 4/5

view more: next ›