I mean, regional instances don’t have to stop folks from engaging primarily with interest based communities.

Some regions will dominate certain interests for example - here in Tucson we’re consider one of the Amateur Astronomy capitals of the world. If mander.xyz were to disappear tomorrow, Tucson would make a good home for all of the fediverse’s astronomy needs even though its a region based instance.

Further, there’s nothing that states an interest-based instance needs any registration. One could imagine a world where local instances have all the users and identities, and the interest based instances simply provide communities to the larger fediverse with no users of their own.

But yeah, it’s definitely a paradigm shift that makes interest based communities a bit more difficult to find.

Oh okay! I’m sorry about the misunderstanding.

???

I don’t particularly have any issues with them.

But if a user did, they don’t have much recourse. I’m talking about that as a structural aspect. Not a moral one.

But sure if you just want to claim this puts me in the !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com community by ripping it out from any relevant context, go ahead I guess?

Hi there! Admin of Tucson.social here.

I think that the only way the fediverse can honestly handle this is through local/regional nodes not interest based global nodes.

Ideally this would manifest as some sort of non-profit entity that would work with municipalities to create community owned spaces that have paid moderation.

So then comes the problem of folks not agreeing with a local nodes moderation staff - but that’s also WHY it should be local. It’s much easier to petition and organize against someone who exists in your town than some guy across the globe who happens to own a large fediverse node.

This model just doesn’t work (IMO) if nodes can’t be accountable to a local community. If you don’t like how Mastodon, or lemmy.world are moderated you have zero recourse. For Tucson.social - citizens of Tucson can appeal to me directly, and because they are my fellow citizens I take them FAR more seriously.

Only then will people be trusting enough to allow for the key element to protecting against AI Slop. Human Indemnification Systems. Right now, if you wanted to ask the community of lemmy.world to provide proof they are human, you’d wind up with an exodus. There’s just no trust for something like that and it would be hard to acquire enough trust.

With a local node, that conversation is still difficult, but we can do things that just don’t scale with global nodes. Things like validating a person by meeting them to mark them as “indemnified” on a platform, or utilizing local political parties to validate if a given person is “real” or not using voter rolls.

But yeah, this is a bit rambly, but I’ll conclude that this is a problem that exists at the intersection between trust and scale and that I believe that local nodes are the only real solution that can handle both.

I understand the sentiment… But… This is a terribly reasoned and researched article. We only need to look at the NASA to see how this is flawed.

Blown Capacitors/Resistors, Solder failing over time and through various conditions, failing RAM/ROM/NAND chips. Just because the technology has less “moving parts” doesn’t mean its any less susceptible to environmental and age based degradation. And we only get around those challenges by necessity and really smart engineers.

The article uses an example of a 2014 Model S - but I don’t think it’s fair to conflate 2 Million Kilometers in the span of 10 years, vs the same distance in the span of the quoted 74 years. It’s just not the same. Time brings seasonal changes which happen regardless if you drive the vehicle or not. Further, in many cases, the car computers never completely turn off, meaning that these computers are running 24/7/365. Not to mention how Tesla’s in general have poor reliability as tracked by multiple third parties.

Perhaps if there was an easy-access panel that allowed replacement of 90% of the car’s electronics through standardized cards, that would go a long way to realizing a “Buy it for Life” vehicle. Assuming that we can just build 80 year, “all-condition” capacitors, resistors, and other components isn’t realistic or scalable.

Whats weird is that they seem to concede the repairability aspect at the end, without any thought whatsoever as to how that impacts reliability.

In Conclusion: A poor article, with a surface level view of reliability, using bad examples (One person’s Tesla) to prop up a narrative that EVs - as they exist - could last forever if companies wanted.