ravenn

just read up on it. seems really interesting and solves a lot of communication concerns and similar syncronization techniques i entertain. something like ssb paired with a decntralized file system wpuld be cool. like soul seek, but with a partionable space to permit through traffic to relieve congestion for either high demand to low supply files or just to contribute a generic support to single host files to provide additional failsafe support. and by generic, i mean setting those as options with a partitiom that seeks across the network to fulfill charitable network and drive offerings as you best see fit. maybe i wanna offer coverage for low view count peertube videos or indie pop is what i want.

sorry for ramble, ssb looks really cool, and having a sorta mesh of systems like that and soulseek or peertube alongside self hostability feels like the future internet to me. or just my dreams of what could be

i dream of a server system where each person can contribute to a topic as a whole without any intermediary governing force.

lets say i meet up with alice and bertha at lunch. alice bring up the latest one piece chapter and bertha is totally clueless and im super into it and we talk for 30 minutes.

that information is between all three of us, and bertha didnt even care. her fidelity of the story may not be as sharp as alice or mine, but she still syncronized some of the data by proximity in relation and location.

so lets say a server looks at a conversation between us three. but in this case, its one server, built out of the intersection of our 3 servers, and then the separate 3 servers where they dont overlap. the overlap region here would be thr "lunch forum" and a "one piece discussion board" on that "lunch forum". any of us may dc or choose to idle the resources while others do their talking, but could be pinged back in by a new discussion board, say "doctor who" that all three of us like. this is a reason to have a decentralized implicit server built out of 3 very centralized personal servers. then anyome can leave, and any one can join, amd you recreate the data system that is social interaction.

how such a syncronization might work i would guess would put things into a temporary or public port where you offload data into a charitable server contribution, jusy like social interactions demand a certain amount of charitable interaction. and anything in that shared space can be freely copied or shared, unless encrpyted by a signature such as a dialect or inside translation key where people understand one piece is about a treasure and not a single piece swimsuit. this is off the cuff ideas, but im sure the big wigs of networking could make a system a lot more fluid.

but this achieves a federated and defederated network that is federated at the meeting up in a meta server byilt off two or more independent servers agreeing to pool resources and synchronize experiences

someone can want permissive licenses, want people to not use it in a way someone doesnt see fit, want individual and collective freedoms, and understand that one of those wants is not like the others (perhaps its strictly incompatible) and accept that inside themself is a want to police freedoms while wanting no policing of freedoms. freedom is just that. a seagull does not seek permission to migrate, or devour horseshoe crabs while migrating. freedom has a nature.

so to address the core argument, freedom is a double edged sword. to make it single edged is to make it something other than freedom. and thats fine to want, but the argument for permissive licenses being used for things dear programmer didnt intend being something to avoid is an argument for something other than freedom.

i usually lurk, but this weird cognitive dissonance is all throughout this and similar communities. yes people have a freedom to share code freely, and not worry about political and economic nuances of what copy right left or wrong means. yes poltical influences have the freedom to murky the waters. yes economic influences have the freedom to feed you that murky water of contracts and aggreements and chain you into their systrms. yes you have the freedom to just turn the ~~binky~~ blinky box off and touch grass. yes it doesnt mean its fair. fair is an event run by carnies.

so maybe we shouldnt argue what is fair when it comes to freedom of expression (the umbrella shielding all copyleft arguments), but instead argue the reality that if you do something with technology, others should reasonably be free to assume you would be okay with that technology being used.

and that could he a very unpeaceful way of handling it.

and to really argue avout copyright is to argue that a string of 0's and 1's through an interpreter that can also be defined as 0's and 1's is something more than the clever rybbing of two (often very large) base 2 numbers against each other for whatever purpose we really wish. and that concept itself isnt copyrightable, because its the nature of reality. and if some people learned to procedurally generate those numbers and procedurally rub them against each other, perhaps those people are just doing math and it happens to send this comment into existence, by sheer odds of brute force.

hopefully someone reads this and understands just how immature (not wrong, just underdeveloped in thinking style) the arguements of freedom for me with code and not for thee really is.

thank you for coming to my rant. im going back to lurking.

why not save the state of the di(ce) in the settling phase and choose (or allow user assignable) value for how many consecutive identicle states before freezing the di(ce) and reporting the result?

my only concern would be a "spinning" di but short of colliding with other dice, that seems technically solved

any good guide on doing so?