There’s work being done on it, but from my understanding, it’s slow going…

Nostr identities are entirely self generated, and there’s no need for a traditional registration with each community. A single invite link could theoretically convey all the information required to join a community. Exact implementation will depend on the relay that hosts the community and the software they use to do so, but there’s no explicit need to make users register in a traditional sense, just join with the npub identity they created themselves. Some may make further requirements to curtail spam and other low quality content, but that becomes a decision for each individual community as best fits their needs.

It’s true that nostr as a protocol doesn’t seem to have any real capacity for voice, but given a Discord-like community would probably “live” on a fixed relay, that server could also very easily provide something like a TURN server like Matrix clients use for voice and I think video support. The client could integrate support for it, and the typical clueless user wouldn’t see the difference. For the more ephemeral nature of most voice communications, there’s no real need to publish voice chat through Nostr events. It could be done, sort of, for any talks that need to be archived, but it’s not a requirement for the vast majority of the voice chat happening on Discord anyway.

That’s a moot point because Discord doesn’t even have that. Community discovery happens almost entirely through users sharing invite links. There are third party websites that aggregate and categorize public communities with long lasting or permanent invite links, and that’s about the only other option. Functionally, a user can ignore where the community is hosted. All that matters is that they get the invite they want, just like today with Discord.

I think you see it as a federated system like the Fediverse, but that’s not really the case. Nostr relays are under no obligation to propagate content between each other, and for a Discord-like community, there’s no real need to. Clients are free to connect to as few or as many relays as they like. For something like this, the relay used by the community would be baked into the invite so users can connect without worrying about it. From their perspective, the only real difference is that the link doesn’t start with the Discord domain name.

Call it a server, then. Tons of people already call them Discord servers. And it’d be a lot more true of Flotilla than Discord. Functionally, from a UX perspective, there’d be VERY little difference to an end user. You’d get an invite somehow, probably through a link, maybe combined with whitelisting your identity for more private communities, and you’d be in, using a client remarkably similar to Discord once it’s in a good spot. For most users, they can fully ignore the technical complexities.

Discord does exactly one thing not entirely shittily. It puts all those features in one place. It gets beat out in any one feature, but you can run an entire community within a Discord for free. You shouldn’t because it’s terrible at most of that and mediocre at the rest, but it’s free and just good enough if you bludgeon it into shape with tools and bots and stuff.

I wonder if Flotilla on Nostr will be ready in time. The nostr community can unfortunately be a bit iffy right now, but I like the tech, and I’m always excited to see someone taking a good stab at Discord.

I use a relatively low spec KVM VPS on another continent. Remember, kids, if all your backups are in one location, you don’t have backups. You have copies.

And now Mullvad has all the data

More likely to make the government buy them all.

Man, I wish self hosted email was a reasonable thing to do. But it’s a pain to set up the server and the domain stuff, and once you do, if anyone ever spammed off that IP, you’re probably screwed anyway because good luck getting off the blacklists.

A Coulomb is basically a number of electrons, so it still very much depends on capacity. The only way it could avoid capacity dependence is if the amperage varied depending on total available uncharged capacity. That in itself is unlikely because the wires that transmit the electricity can only handle so many amps before getting too hot and melting apart, so any charging system must necessarily be constructed with intended charging capacity and rate in mind from the beginning.

The security of these certificates only guarantees that you’re talking to the right server and that your communication is encrypted. For other concerns like of the server was hacked, you’ll need something else. No individual piece of security tech can secure everything. You as the site admin can only use it as one piece of a comprehensive security package that defends against what you perceive as the most credible threats.

Asking where’s the security is like asking where’s the protection with a bullet proof vest if you can still get shot in the head. A vest offers one type of protection, but a comprehensive security package is going to include other pieces like helmets.

I don’t know what the process is like to become a certificate authority. I imagine the answer is technically yes but realistically no, at least not as an individual. You’d be providing a critical piece of internet infrastructure, so you’d need the world to consider you capable of providing the service reliably while also capable of securing the keys used to sign certificates so they can’t be forged. It’s a big responsibility that involves putting a LOT of trust in the authority, so I don’t think it’s taken very lightly.

It’s to make sure you’re actually reaching your intended endpoint. If I’m visiting a site for the first time, how do I know I actually have THEIR certificate? If it’s self generated, anybody could sign a certificate claiming to be anybody else. The current system is to use authority figures who validate certificates are owned by the site you’re trying to visit. This means you have a secure connection AND know you’re interacting with the correct site.

Primarily republicans. That’s the party that benefits most from voter suppression, gerrymandering, shitty voting systems, etc. Ranked choice voting exists in some capacity in over a dozen states, and it trends heavily towards left leaning states.

The more important fact, however, is that it’s an unknown idea that’s not interesting enough to attract attention over more immediate problems.

Ranked choice voting exists in some regions of the US already. It sure as fuck won’t come from the Republicans, but if voters actually cared to demand it, they could see it happen. It’s not impossible, just utterly unknown to most of the populace.

You’re never going to get meaningful change voting third party under the American voting system. A first past the post voting system will ALWAYS result in a two party system. If we hurt the current parties by voting third party enough to kill one, we’ll just replace the dead party. It might be an improvement at first, but eventually, all the same forces push us back into the same end result after a while.

The US needs major reform to the electoral system. Switch from first past the post to something like ranked choice or approval voting. Abolish the fucking electoral college, which some states are attempting with a law to automatically grant all electoral college votes to the popular vote winner if enough states agree to make it guarantee the winner. Expand and guarantee access to mail in voting. And indirectly, reinvest in the fucking education system.

Of course, with full control of the federal government going to Republicans who benefit from all these problems, there’s no way any of it gets addressed now.

He didn’t even want to buy Twitter, just manipulate the stock price by talking about buying it. Dumbass signed too much paperwork and waived too many rights, though, and found himself obligated to buy it anyway. Pretty sure he tried to fight it and lost.

So now he’s trying to not burn all his money, but he’s fucking terrible at it, so he’s just becoming a laughing stock.

I don’t think Valve would help implement something like that. They’ve shown a lot of initiative in trying to push Linux into the mainstream for gaming, and a move like that would be counterproductive to that goal.

Plus, it ignores the fact that the Deck isn’t trying to be the only piece of hardware in the space, just the first to prove it’s commercially viable, and they succeeded in that. Competitive devices are coming to market, and when gamers start buying them, it’s going to seem foolish to whitelist JUST the Deck.

Rockstar’s only semi-viable play of that nature is to attempt to require SteamOS as your Linux distro, but I see no way to do that so you always and only block other Linux distros.