I think we're just getting started.

Yeah of course, we need to remember Lemmy is not even out of beta yet. But people don't really care, they try it once and if the user experience isn't at the level of competitors they simply won't use it unless there's a philosophical rationale (for example decentralization, but many don't care at all). That's why I'm so happy many developers with great UX experience like Sync are approaching the platform

But I think there's a big difference here

I tried to use mastodon but I feel that microblogging inherently require some centralization, it's impossibile to find people to follow and the feed is always a mess with bunch of stuff that doesn't interest me.

On the contrary I'm using Lemmy since a while and it works much better for content discovery, communities act as a"human algorithm" the same way they work on Reddit and it help much with the federation approach.

What I arrived to realize is that some form of social media are more adaptable to the fediverse.

For example, I hardly see any decentralized version of TikTok

Centralized services are usually more efficient than decentralized but that's not the primary goal of the fediverse

My main concern with this is, if only a handful of centralized social network reached long term stability, and most of them are unprofitable, how can Lemmy (or any other foss fediverse project) completely hold itself on 2 unpaid developers and immense unpaid work from volunteers in the long run.

Because ok, Lemmy.world is looking for experienced sysadmin and that post already had a little backslash, but this isn't sustainable long term, it's impossibile to keep scaling like that.

And I feel that's one of the biggest reasons holding back the fediverse

Ok but the question that arise is:" if the community is duplicated on every server that access it, isn't it a little bit of a waste of computational power and disk space ?"

Expecially considering now Lemmy is pretty small, but in the future you could hopefully have a much larger audience

YT's system that had messed up and not the legal system.

Oh the legal system is very much messed up, YouTube tried to put a bandage in it. You have to consider that usually you would need a full personalized legal contract for each piece of copyrighted material you use. Content id tries to automate the process, but it's not perfect.

A 10-20% royalty should be more than enough to incentivise research while still preventing price-fixing and monopolies.

Which is what happens with patents today. The company holding the patent rarely also physical produces the drug, they usually have "manufacturing agreements" expecially in geographic far markets; where they let a second company make the drug with the company holding the patent on it and they are free to sell it in exchange for a percentage of the label price.

That's also what happened with vaccines and many other medications, it's like the standard procedure lol

Ok but in the opposite direction you suggested

You alluded to the fact it has been subsidized, but it's the opposite, probably the program would be much better if EDF hadn't been treated like a cash cow

Ok but how other people will know I replied to a comment or posted if the community on the original server is down?

Look at this.

It's just a single example, there are endless songs which are samples of samples of samples... Once in a while YouTube content id will have some problems as it's not perfect. It doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed. Like saying every car on the planet is cursed because once you got a flat tyre.

Only the rich and powerful or those willing to go deeply into debt are able to benefit from all of that extra research.

Pay attention because the alternative to patents is not a "free for all" approach , it's industrial secrecy. As research is still very much expensive for entities to carry out.

Set aside than, no, extra research benefits everyone in the society as new cures for diseases are discovered faster and medicine evolve organically. Patents were the compromise to ensure companies could monetize their research while sharing their knowledge, are there other possible equilibrium? Sure, but we still have to remember we live in the real world, you can't have a cake and eat it

You mean the company the french state squished for profit for 2 decades and that during the pandemic has been forced to subsidized electricity prices for everyone?

yeah but how much more is Uranium if it's mined in Canada compared to the one from Niger or Russia?

Consider the cost from fuel is not mainly for uranium ore, but for fuel manufacturing and processing. Like taking the ore and transformer them in pellets fuel.

May uranium ore double in price the increase of cost for nuclear would be less than 0,005€/kWh

start producing energy in 10 years AND are massively expensive is just not a reasonable investment

How can Japan build a reactor in 36 month but we can't? How can other countries finance favouribly nuclear power (nuclear is the energy source that most of all the others suffer discount rated) but we can't?

Nuclear gave France one of the cheapest electricity price in Europe, but we don't want to retry because we don't feel we can achieve it?

Side note, solar panels have problems too as their carbon footprint could be 3 times higher than expected

between one buyer with fairly limited funds and few large corporations with extensive funds

Which is the same as saying that every vote is transferred between one voter, with very limited knowledge and political awareness and a few politicians with extensive power because politics is what they do their entire life.

Democracy is, in many practical sense, a market for votes. One which is way less regulated than the one for goods and services

The left didn't touch it either and they had decades to do so.

Reality is, a third of the country is more than 60 years old, which kind of fool must you be to oppose such a strong voting demographics?