I also love this bit:

Some purists may be aghast at shortening grands prix but this is not a new concept. In 1958, as part of a wider package of changes including a ban on alcohol-based fuels, maximum race lengths were cut from 500km or three hours to 300km and two hours.

It really makes the opposite point: this rule hasn’t been touched since 1958, and yet they feel the need to change it now!

That’s awesome! It looks like it was definitely worth the effort!

This is what I love about bikes. Simple, cheap, repairable, and last forever with a bit of maintenance. And even if they deteriorate a bit over time, they can be brought back to life again :)

Thank you so much! Of course, no worries if you drop it at any time.

Ah, the AI crawlers have screwed everything up again :( I’m sorry that it’s so difficult. Anyway, no pressure.

would a RSS feed for the last post be enough for the feed to have the text and the remaning be just a link

Yeah, that would be enough for me! Or even a separate feed with just the latest article. I’m pretty sure my feed reader would notice a change to the existing entry and download it again when it updated to be just the link, although I’m sure I could filter that out.

I’ve seen a few of your posts around on the fedi and they’ve always made me think, so thank you for sharing! Would you consider a full-text RSS feed by any chance? I’d love to add your blog to my reading list.

Yeah! I stepped backwards onto what I thought was someone’s foot, apologised, but it turned out it was actually the prong of a swivel chair.

I’ve checked out Gemini a couple of times and find it a fun project.

In my opinion though, we gain more by participating in the wider web. There are a plethora of small web websites out there - it’s only difficult to find them. Blogrolls/blogrings and dedicated search engines like Marginalia help with this.

This also lets everyone have a more granular definition of what’s important to them: lack of javascript, minimal page size, lack of styling, full-text RSS feeds, compatibility with text-mode browsers etc. Everyone can pick and choose what they value without having to hash out agreement over the spec.

Are you the original author? If so, thanks, I enjoyed the post! It made me think. I’ve subscribed to the RSS feed but it returns 404 for me FYI.

My main questions is, what does platform cooperative provide that is not already provided by open standards, and do you think that governance should be tied to the protocol, or exist below it at the instance and/or software implementation level?

I think that democratic processes should exist where this is power imbalance, exploitation and no safety release valve that lets the vulnerable people freely step away. E.g., we have democracy to prevent authoritarian rule, and because it’s hard to move country. We have workers co-ops and unions to prevent the power imbalance between bosses, customers and workers.

So, a co-op of taxi drivers makes sense to me, because all of those conditions exist: Uber is dominant, they own the two-sided market so it’s more difficult for customers or drivers leave, and the drivers are exploited because they have few alternatives.

But, don’t open source and open standards provide safety release valves that prevent such exploitation? At every layer of the stack, you can choose to swap out a part, be it client, server, instance, etc. You can choose to engage in the standards process, or you can build your own software that doesn’t completely follow the rules if you want, and still take part in the network. Who is being exploited in this environment, when there are ways to jump ship from any of these?

Of course, open standards are vulnerable to capture by big players, since the user count determines your influence over the network. But, is that really a big problem? You still get the tools to build your own pocket of the network with like-minded people, like what we’re doing on the fediverse now. You can still convince people to leave through argument, persuasion, freedom of association and making it easier for them to jump ship without losing everything.

On the fediverse, we already have co-ops where each user gets a stake in the rules, moderation, etc. We also have instances that are run as more of a benevolent dictatorship, but where everyone is there freely. We have single-user instances too. To me, this is the best of all worlds, because everyone can choose the governance model that suits them, and we can all co-operate together.

This is where my opinion depends on what you’re arguing for. Is your suggestion to tie the governance to the protocol itself, or to push for more co-operatively run instances and software? If the latter, I’m all for it :) but if it’s the former, to me that’s a step backward, because we’re placing a checkpoint on who can join the network that removes the safety release valves and pushes people into a democratic system that they might not agree with.

Open source is about who can see the code. Federation is about who owns the network. Cooperativism is about who holds the keys.

For me, this the essence of the argument. But I’m not quite sure what the keys are to: what power and influence do they unlock? Open source makes sense to me because the people doing the work have a say in what’s happening. I’m nervous to give power to users, who are not doing work, over volunteers, who are doing work. But then, when there is funding involved, I think that naturally leads to more users having more influence, because they can always take it away if their priorities are not met. See Snowdrift Co-op for instance. To me, the biggest solution is finding a way to fund open source projects directly from users.

I think music fulfills multiple roles. I listen to music as:

• Background music to help me foucs
• Gym/running music to pump me up
• Something that sounds nice - that’s surprising, has good production, has nice hooks
• A way to unlock or enhance a certain emotion or feel an emotional connection with the artist because they are being vulnerable and showing something about themselves

It makes sense to me that AI would more easily fulfill the earlier ones and that the later ones might therefore become more valuable. The earlier ones are about being inoffensive, while the later put a premium on being surprising, risky and bold.

I think that we will adapt what we find valuable, in the same way as artists now make most of their income from touring, whereas in the past it was flipped and most income would come from CDs, while the tours would be for promotion.

I have a lot of search shortcuts configured in Firefox, and find vertical search is a good way of avoiding google.

• Wikipedia, Wikidata: for factual things, finding links to homepages of brands or well-known venues, macros of ingredients.
• Wiktionary: for definitions.
• OpenStreetMap: for physical locations, to get opening hours or websites of physical shops.
• OpenStreetMap Wiki, PostmarketOS Wiki, Debian Wiki, Guile Mailing List Archives: if you can find a wiki, forum or mailing list dedicated to your special interest, then searching these directly can be pretty good.
• Lemmy: for recommendations, general opinions, looking for negative opinions about services before I try them.
• Podcast Index: I used to use Apple Podcast’s website to find the canonical RSS feed for a podcast, but someone on Lemmy pointed me to this website, which is more independent.
• Marginalia: for recipes, especially with the no javascript filter enabled, just by typing in the names of some ingredients I want to use, I’ll find all sorts of weird and wonderful webpages with nice recipes on.
• Repology: to look for software packages.

And then, for general searches, I normally start off with Marginalia, followed by SearXNG, followed by DuckDuckGo if desperate.

Who decides what goes on that list? How do you ensure measurement/enforcement of these rules is accurate and fair? How do you prevent takeover of whatever body manages/enforces this list by people with bad intentions?

I would love it if people who disagreed with my fundamental beliefs weren’t allowed to vote too, but I think it’s the wrong level to attack the problem. You have to have a political debate and bring people on side instead. Otherwise, why do we have a democracy anyway?

I thought it was a good race. The period while the leaders were stuck behind Hadjar (and lapping backmarkers, if I remember rightly?) was pretty tense. The Piastri collision was such a shame, it would’ve been great for the race if he’d have been ahead and Norris would’ve had to overtake on track.

I was shouting at my TV a couple of times. One when Piastri had the collision with the Williams in the picture-in-picture and it didn’t get picked up on commentary until the replay. The other was that fact that they showed the coming out of the pits / safety car line before playing the team radio, so the commentators were treating it as “ohh, that was really close!” before realising it was in reference to a possible infringement. Not major things really, but it’s a shame when it feels like I know what’s going on more than the commentators for a brief period.

I actually want that. Not so I can chat to the AI, but so that everyone else who is forced into the office so that they can be on a call with their teammates in other regions don’t distract me, and vice versa. I have noise cancelling headphones, but even they aren’t enough.

Prosody for me. I set it up over 2 years ago, and the only time I touched it was when updating to the latest Debian stable and enabling some new features in the config files. It’s been rock-solid and just worked without complaint.

I’m pretty good at Mario Kart. I hadn’t played it for about 10 years, but I beat all my friends when I played Mario Kart World for the first time with them recently.

The main part is the party’s support for so-called “remigration”, which is

ethnic cleansing[1] via mass deportation of non-white minority populations, especially immigrants and sometimes including native-born citizens, to their place of racial ancestry

About the immigration policy of the party:

Markus Allard initiated heavy debate in 2025 by claiming that Sweden is “the land for/belongs to the Swedes” and that the Örebro party favors a large scale remigration policy. He also criticized the Sweden Democrats for, according to him, allowing too many immigrants into the country under their watch as confidence and supply to the Kristersson cabinet.

In 2026 ÖP party leader Markus Allard sparked controversy on several occasions. In a debate hosted by Studio3 with Liberal member of parliament Martin Melin, Allard asked: “why won’t the Liberals push for deporting 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?” and in the same debate said that “Sweden belongs to the Swedes. We have to make sure that we take care of our own damn people and we must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense.” [45]

In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that “They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish.” [46]

About the foreign policy of the party:

In a podcast in May 2026 Allard clarifies some positions that his party holds and among other things made clear that leaving the EU and NATO were on the table for ÖP. Regarding NATO Allard claimed that Sweden cannot trust or rely on NATO and that the country should instead seek to massively increase its weapons production and also become a major arms exporter, arguing it would benefit the Swedish economy.[47][48]

Hi, I’m choosing this comment to reply to everyone at once, since there’s a lot of overlap in the comments.

I’m sorry for not following the etiquette of the community. I’ve updated the post to contain a blurb to explain why I liked the article. I hope it’s ok but if there are any problems I’m happy to amend it or change the focus of the blurb.

I was careful to check the rules before posting, and in all other communities I actively participate in, link-only posts are completely fine, so I didn’t even stop to think it could be a problem. I now appreciate that this is not the followed norm of this community though. I can see that it could be easily misinterpreted as self-promotion, since I didn’t state I wasn’t the authour of the post. I have subscribed to this community for a while and made a couple of comments, but this is my first post here and with the posts mixed in the rest of the feed, I guess I didn’t build a good sense of the unwritten norms of the community.

I am not the authour of the blog post. This is the personal blog post of someone who works for the Sovereign Tech Agency. I appreciate their posts because they took a very thoughtful approach to why they are self-hosting certain things. Their technical approach is an extension of the “why” they are doing it and this is very clearly and explicitly laid out. This is something I quite like, and at least in the blogs I follow, relatively unique.

I am based in the UK. I always catch up on my RSS feeds before i go to bed, and if I see something interesting, I tend to share it on lemmy. I only woke up again now because of the heatwave here! Another lesson learned, if posting to this community again, do it while I’m available for the next few hours.

No, I won’t. If it was cheaper, I’d consider it.

My partner plays games on steam and uses my old gaming PC, running Bazzite and unfortunately with an nvidia GPU. Some games like The Last of Us II has lots of graphical glitches and we have to play around with the steam launch settings a lot.

It’d be awesome to buy a plug-and-play solution as I never know when there are issues with our PC whether it’s to do with our specific setup, or the game’s linux support in general.

As it stands we’ll probably look to get an AMD GPU when we can afford it. Which I think will be in quite a while.

I’m actually ok with this, if it only applies to the biggest social media companies (10million+ UK users) who have algorithmically ranked content. And it should apply to what gets weighted in the feeds, not whether the content exists on the site at all.

I think big tech companies shouldn’t be held responsible for all user generated content on their site, but they should be held responsible for the content they actively promote via the feeds, if they do so algorithmically. I think this article (from a US perspective) presents a good framework for moderation. The more you are a “dumb pipe”, the less moderation you should have, and the more you actively make user-facing decisions about content, the more oversight and moderation you should have. And, if you are a small provider (like the fediverse 😜) then you should be exempt from these regulations to encourage competition.

We have public service broadcasters who are regulated by Ofcom. It’s not perfect - Ofcom should be strengthened, made more politically independent and should have much more teeth, and they’ve been woeful in dealing with GBeebies - but the regulated public service broadcasters are among the most trusted news providers in the UK.

I’m sympathetic to the idea that any kind of restriction is a slippery slope. And I know the public service broadcasters are not perfect, there are problems of political interference that need to be dealt with, and of course they don’t appeal to everyone. But they are also among the most trusted news outlets?

I’m also sympathetic to the idea that the government is solving this the wrong way round. That they are trying to fix this on the supply side when really it’s a demand problem - people just don’t like the regulated news providers enough so they don’t get promoted by the feeds on social media. But that argument presumes that the tech companies’ feeds are purely responding to consumer demand; social media companies are now mostly owned by people who want to, or are careless about, interfering with our democracy and promoting particular ideologies. So I think the era of trusting that whatever the algorithms promote is just based on what we want is over.

For me it comes down to trust, since the distro maintainers have root on your system. You’d better trust their competence and alignment with your values!