This is great to hear, thanks :)

Thanks I didn’t know that!

Oh ok, I didn’t know that. I was so glad I was able to snatch my character names :D It does make sense though with only 16 players per lobby and having to interact to trade there isn’t much need for unique names.

It’s hard to predict but the extinguish part would come from bigger non-Threads instances implementing compatibility with Thread-only extensions (in the interest of their users, or for money) and fragmenting the community. Threads then becomes the defacto ActivityPub standard. Maybe some instances stay true to the standard but with extremely reduced communities because now they can’t see what other instances are publishing. So now you have to decide between your ideals and your social network. At best, you’re back to square 0.

If they become so ubiquitous that all you see are Threads messages, all they have to do is start adding their own extensions to ActivityPub and degrade the experience of everyone who is not using their app.

C’est rapide maintenant ! Ça fait du bien il faut le dire.

The Fediverse needs to encourage different instances. It’s the only way it can work. It has the technical framework to do it and for it to be transparent to the enduser but I feel like it’s not there yet.

For example I think users should be strongly encourages to chose regional instances instead of lemmy.world (I know know, ironic coming from me). It should be default and require the user to go out of their way to select a different instance. It should also be concisely explained that your instance doesn’t matter and that you can see any other federated instance. Yes, this is not always true but it doesn’t matter to someone just joining. Let them get here first and then they’ll naturally learn about the intricacies. Don’t scare them away at the gates.

You should add the lemmy instance to your block list

I do agree with you about the core of what you’re saying, that in the end it’s a good thing to help people. For sure. But when talking about public funds you have to keep in mind priorities. In this case I can see how this doesn’t seem like a priority to some people, money is not unlimited and these funds could be used for something else. I would personally be more on board if this program targeted students who are about to get loans, I just think it would have more value to society in general than helping someone who is 10 years into their loan and not struggling financially.

Now as I said I’m not an expert on US public finance so if you tell me that these funds couldn’t be used somewhere else anyway and would be wasted in less important projects then sure I’d revise my opinion.

I have a hard time seeing how this program is not unfair (not American so might be missing something).

My understanding is that there are 2 programs. One that helps reduce loans by 1k a year, and another one that forgives loans with less than 12k left after 10 years.

The first one seems to be ok as a measure for new students taking out loans because then it would work as a tool to encourage higher education. But as a blanket help it seems unfair as the benefitting people already made their choice and got (or are getting) their education. For the special case of people who are struggling financially I think a program that is specific to them and helps them relative to their struggle would be more appropriate, and it would surprise me if it doesn’t already exist.

As for the second program it seems to just be a gift to people who have already made their choice and completed their education, and is not fair at all to people who have consciously chosen to not pursue this because they couldn’t afford the debt. If someone is financially struggling see my previous point about more appropriate tools to help them, otherwise if they’re not struggling then what is the point of this?

Furthermore the second program also seems to be a one-off? I’m not sure here so please correct me if I’m wrong. If that is the case then it doesn’t even encourage people to pursue higher education.

I think I can add a little clarification here. It’s not that progress bars are impossible to implement, it’s specifically time-based progress bars that are impossible for the simple reason that you can’t predict how long the task is going to take in the user’s computer.

That being said it’s perfectly possible to implement task-based progress bars. If you have 100 resources to load before showing the next scene, the progress bar can advance 1% for every resource. Some games do that. But what the devs in the mentioned tweets are saying is that doesn’t always “feel” good. If you have 99 small resources and 1 huge resource, to the user it’s gonna feel like it’s “stuck” after flying through the initial 99%. So what they do is voluntarily make the first 99% go slower so the last 1% feels better (and other variations around that).