Natanael

because the right have redefined racism to be "prejudice+ill intent",

They claim to define it that way, and then immediate after accuses everybody else of racism just arguing in good faith when you're pointing out THEIR malice against minorities. "You weren't supposed to notice my victim's ethnicity is different, that means you see race and thus YOU'RE racist" is the logic you can expect.

Appealing bans by suing them over first amendment right to petition (yes it covers more than freedom of speech)

It's not, but they're cowards

The Green Hornet too. Using speculations from a journalist to make plans.

It wasn't for the victims, it was for the perpetrators. Their soldiers would take too much emotional damage from mass scale murder and break down, so they created new ways to mass murder without putting them face to face

Those grow in gas chambers

Fediverse servers can quickly get more expensive if you have a few thousand users, or even a few dozen but somebody has a post go viral. That's because every retrieval of a post always goes to the original user's server, every like does too, etc, and this generates a flood of events which quickly gets expensive to process.

Just ask the maintainers of the botsin.space Mastodon server who couldn't afford to keep it running, and now put the server in archival mode and not allowing new posts.

A PDS only publishes static data and don't have to process incoming events, making it very easy to run one behind a caching server very cheaply.

There is another problem: these other relays are all copies of the Bluesky relay, where the official app publishes the messages of its users, so they are not independent from each other; if I publish my posts on a relay other than Bluesky's I will not be able to communicate with them.

Not entirely correct.

Every individual users' account host (PDS) publishes directly locally, the relay then collects published posts from known PDS servers (including both bluesky's own and others' self hosted servers) and display everything. A PDS server can sync to multiple relays. Relays can even sync to each other, which is practical because PDS servers publish through content addressing for posts in user repositories so it's easy to verify completeness.

So sure if somebody uses an app connected to a filtering / partial / out of sync relay they might not see everything. This is not an architectural limit in the protocol, however.

A split would create North Korea 2.0

The appview needs to index the relay contents to build a view of the whole network, the relay is just a type of CDN, and is NOT that expensive. There are multiple individuals maintaining full copies right now, while the network is at double digit millions of users. The relay is by far less expensive.

You're looking at poorly matched cloud options in that article. The individuals doing it does it easily on a NAS and equivalent. The cost from running public relays will come from traffic, not storage

It's the appview that needs to be made lighter, and that work is progressing. Like building variants you can self host which are selective and only care about content from your network (and only fetching other content as needed)

There's work ongoing right now in making it easier to run a small appview, and the relay is cheaper to run than the appview and very manageable by even small companies

Linux does this better by defaulting to files not being executable, versus Windows needing the downloading software to apply a specific "downloaded file" flag to trigger a notice about potentially unsafe files.

You could make a lot of the commands available by default much less dangerous. Stuff like requiring using protected screens more (like UAC and ctrl+alt+del) for enabling the risky stuff.

Also, sandboxing by default would do even more to prevent the worst dangers.

The lawyer can make any case the client wish, but not by knowingly lying to the court (note that not sharing privileged information is a very different thing). In other words, saying things like "my client's position is X" rather than making false statements of fact. And not falsely claiming their position has legal support in precedent if they know it doesn't, etc.

More practically speaking, to ensure their client actually gets competent legal representation they would push their client to accept them presenting multiple legal arguments and not exclusively sticking to the narrative, allowing the lawyer to focus on the client's legal rights and doing what a lawyer should do (basically "the client does not concede on any point, but if the court finds X then we argue A and if it finds Y we argue B", offering legal arguments to "hypotheticals"), so you don't leave any important legal arguments from the opposing side unanswered.

Tldr, make sure that no matter what the court finds, you're making arguments to protect their legal rights and to ensure sentencing is fair.

And when a client is so unreasonable that their position can't be represented accurately in a legal manner without simultaneously contradicting the client, well screw that client 🤷