That’s nice info, thanks! Do you know why the db difference?

Or… perhaps… talk to people and try to understand why they think the way they do. Who knows, maybe you’d hear something that makes sense. Just an idea! :D

Yeah, that makes sense for the defect class of performance problems. I’m more concerned with the inherent performance (compute) disadvantages of Python. Perhaps they wouldn’t matter, hard to know without load testing.

I didn’t downvote.

Yeah, this would be my concern as well if I had to run it. Sure Python apps can be fast and most time is spent in IO, not compute, and if you’re running a profitable operation the exact cost of compute might not matter much. However if you’re running a non-profit service and you want it to be as dirt cheap as possible so it can be free for most users, then the cost of compute very much does matter.

Sure but does the rate of growth matter? The post asks about recommending Piefed instead of Lemmy. I presume the point is that the number of Piefed users would grow if we did that. So whether a thread produces 10, 1000, or 10000 users in a day, the number of users would grow over time. Then I think the question remains, if my Piefed instance costs $10/mo to run today, would it cost $100 with 10000 users or $1000, or more, or less?

Relevant

But how is that not a concern if you’re interested in attracting more users? You run an instance with 500 users. Some thread on Reddit explodes and you get 1000-10000 new users in a few days. If Piefed has poor scaling you might be unable to pay the bills for your now much larger instance. That’s not gonna be great for you or the new users.

We have data on what it costs to run a sizeable instance of Lemmy and it’s not a lot. How does Piefed compare? Anyone starting an instance who envisions it growing large has to contend with this question. Currently it seems it’s got a bit under 1000 users across under 10 servers.

There are now sizeable communities run on Lemmy instances that are reinforced by network effects. There needs to be a significant reason for them to migrate. To that point, the collective project is building communities away from corporate power, not software. The software is a tool to facilitate that. Lemmy has worked well so far in this regard. If someone can show that Piefed can work better and not cost significantly more, it’ll probably get adopted for new communities. If the difference is drastic, we may even see migrations from Lemmy.

Or perhaps it’s a lot more people and perhaps they’re trying to shift the default mo to something that could actually work, that they can get behind. Put differently, what you are observing could be the effect of trying to whip people into following an agenda that they see as ineffective or even harmful. I for one am there. For example I cannot buy the calls to frame Booker’s performance as heroic while he voted Nay for the CR bill instead of filibustering it. This mo has to change. A lot of people have been foaming about this for years and are just tired at this point and simply resort to snark because that’s all the shit they have left to give. I used to interpret that as “trolls” or “Russian bots” splitting the focus. I understand them now.

Not hundreds, tens would likely be enough.

You should look upcheck the study Bernie conducted mid last year. It tested socialist policies without calling them such. If I remember correctly most were popular with the significant majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. Socialist ideas are popular in the US. People very much support Bernie and AOC’s agenda which is full of socialist policies. E.g. universal healthcare, free education.

Yes fascism has already won, we’re at the tip of a trend that started in the 80s. Well actually earlier but the 80s present a recognizable acceleration point. We (not just the US) need to reverse the trend, not change how steep it is for a time.

I get what you’re saying but to me this act seems completely consistent with the standard Democrat mo of not taking action when it really matters, while acting when it doesn’t. The mo that creates the impression of doing things by only doing an insufficient amount. Case in point - Booker’s action did not take place a week ago during the CR vote. Doing it then would have really mattered. If it did, I’d have been shocked. We discussed this with some friends when the rumor came down that Chuck is going to vote for the bill. So now I can’t shake the feeling this act is just meant to paper over that inaction which got many Democrat voters very angry at the party.

Damn that’s not nearly as much as I thought it will be. How’re those spontaneous combustion numbers?

Don’t do it. I’m convinced in what I think.

Bernie and AOC seem to be organizing.

This is not what’s happening here. This isn’t about rendering the libs ineffective. This is real people (this one’s from Canada) trying to send the message that the standard American lib approach is ineffective. That the approach desperately needs to change for resistance to really work. And by libs, I and whoever made the meme mean most mainstream Democrat politicians and to a lesser extent voters who believe those politicians are doing everything in their power to resist fascism, despite the evidence to the contrary. There are a few good discussions in this thread on what’s going on and what could and should be happening instead.

These are the words I’ve heard from anyone paying attention.

Also thank you for your work from this canuck.

It’s a bit more than performative. It’s pacifying. It manages to convince a lot of people that it does everything in its power so said people shouldn’t feel like there’s anything else to be done but vote again next time.

Nailed it. That’s the scheme. Provides plausible deniability, while keeping half of the electorate from seeking options that would hurt the corporate bottom line.

No they literally didn’t do most of those things. We’ve been paying attention.

Yes, all of these.

But I don’t think they are unaware of these methods or unwilling to play dirty. I think that’s just a cover. I’m convinced they simply don’t want to do any of that because on the whole, their donors are either okay with the fascist agenda and/or believe they can get back in power by default because of Trump’s fuckups. Thereby going back to business as usual without promising any significant concessions to their voters. E.g. none of that Medicare for all shit. After two years of the fascists people would be happy to lap up anything that looks even remotely better. See how happy Booker’s performance made people. It’s something and people will take it over nothing.

The party that’s mostly against fascism still is a party that’s is not against fascism. It’s against it in optics only, when at critical juncture after juncture it makes the decisions that enable or even help the fascists. There were so many things these dumb fucks could have done. Some people even from the party itself were screaming the solutions. At this point the only hope I see is the Bernie/AOC program. The Democratic party, as currently formulated, governed and funded has demonstrated that it can’t resist fascism. You have to do anything in your power to elect enough socialist independent reps that vote with Bernie/AOC’s agenda and hold the balance of power. And organize unions. Otherwise the Democrats will win again by default, do nothing material of substance and pave the way for the next wave of fascism to sweep power.