I’m not talking about the technical possibility. Of course you can have multiple video stream, one per participant.
I’m saying that without multicast, it can be more resource intensive than having intermediate servers that can multicast on the application layer.
Is a connection between 3+ people still p2p? Or is there another term for it?
I don’t know how this would work over the internet though.
On a LAN you could use multicast, but I don’t think ISPs support multicast, it seems like it would be an easy way to DoS. But I honestly don’t know.
So, if you can’t multicast, the way to have serverless multi-user video calls would be to have a separate video feed for each receiver, which I can see using more resources than through a server that would replicate the stream to all the receivers. Of course this is dependant on distance, even without multicast it consumes more resources if everyone is in the same LAN.
Fill in the blank please.
And what I’m saying is that what you claim I claimed was never claimed by me.
Since the discussion seems to have derailed let me do a brief summary:
I tried to make the least offensive analogy possible in order to have a logical conversation around the topic. But it still got an emotional response. I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.
The second paragraph is called projection. I never made the claim that those opinions are correct because they are contrarian, yet you keep making the claim that they’re incorrect because they are contrarian.
I don’t understand how being contrarian or not makes an opinion less or more valid. Who decides what mainstream is? Whoever gets more upvotes? We should never ever have an opinion that will get downvoted on Lemmy? Or is it a democratically elected process? In that case, the mainstream opinion in the US in 2020 was that the best person to be the president was Donald trump. Does that make it correct?
You’re yet to give any argument other than “those opinions are wrong because they are contrarian”
First of all, that’s not my opinion. I’m defending the other guy. Since he’s getting his opinion denied under the untrue argument that his opinion is contradictory, when it is not. See the user names.
Second point, “not supporting trans athletes because they are a small group” is not at all what I said, but you are acting as if that were what I said. Let me repeat it again so you can see the difference: you don’t need to support every policy that claims to support a small subset of a group in order to claim that you support that group.
Since it seems hard to understand let me say an example. There is country “chairland” where the chairpeople leave happily. Inside chairland there is a town called “tabletown”. Person A says: “tabletown people should have free access to Netflix!” And person B says: “No, I love chairpeople, but tabletown is not entitled to free Netflix”. Is the claim of people B contradictory? Can’t a person support chairland but not support giving tabletown free Netflix?
And yes, everything in that original comment made by the other guy are opinions. “Trans women should compete in women leagues” is not a fact, doesn’t matter how progressive you are, it is under every definition of the word: an opinion.
You are free to have any opinion you want, I don’t believe in thought crimes. I don’t know why you place such importance on “contrarian”. Is someone that has an opinion different than yours a contrarian? Are contrarian opinions not valid? Therefore, are opinions different than yours not valid?
Contrarian about what? Who are the contestants? I don’t understand your comment.
What is it revealing that I supposedly didn’t want?
Yes. I believe that you can support a political group without supporting 100% of the policies that supposedly support that group.
Basically because it’s impossible fro 100% of the people on the group to agree on exactly which policies are hurtful and which are helpful.
Of all the things in your comment, getting right the “you probably call yourself a centrist” is the least significant part. You’re wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.
Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.
Because guess what. You can’t fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.
As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There’s lots of shades of grey.
And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.
There is no contradiction.
Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn’t make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women’s leagues are a subset of that.
You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.
You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.
Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.
I’m surprised they at least know they have a problem. I would think these companies would just say “look how the sales numbers haven’t changed, that means that we were correct in doing the AI thing. Without it, sales would be sinking into the ocean!”
And how are women pushed out of “man jobs”?
And how are we fixing that?
Is it bosses that aim to have male coworkers turning down women? How is that different than bosses wanting artificially 50/50 turning down men?
Is it not being represented in advertising? How is that different than what happens now. Where most advertising displays just women? Or if there is both a man and a woman, the woman is usually centered in the picture or doing a more important/powerful role.
By “encouraging” women in the workplace, what you see is things being done to men that you complain was done to women.
As long as you call .collect() on it at the end, don’t need to write the entire type as it is a method with a generic parameter, and returns that generic.
The intermediate iterators though, those are hell. Especially if you pass it to a lambda and for some reason rust can’t infer the type.
I once came across a parsing library that did the parsing with basically just the type system. It was absolute hell to debug and build. Types of parsers would be hundreds of characters long. It would take tens of minutes to build a simple parser.
I don’t know much much time it would take to build a complex parser, since it was unable to. it reached the max type generic depth of the rust compiler, and would just refuse to compile.
I believe it was called Chomsky or Chumsky or something like that. Discovering nom was a blessing.
fully qualified type names make any language awful.
Here’s the same example in rust:
let a = std::rc::Rc::new(std::vec::Vec<u8, MyAllocator>::new());
I believe u8 also comes from a module, so it would be something like std::u8::u8, but I’m not sure.
I don’t know typescript. But if that’s the case, this meme doesn’t make much sense.
Who writes the types of variables in a language with type inference unless forced by the compiler?
It’s also valid rust syntax.
But if it were rust, this meme would not make sense, since you would just type let a and type inference would do its thing. Which is much more ergonomic.
JavaScript (Typescript for the type part) and python, the most popular scripting languages, use the same order as PHP.
It’s usually compiled languages that do the other one.
Take into account that in order to make PRs to a repository you don’t have access to, you have to make a fork of the repo. Which means another repo.
I can block .ml communities in my GUI. But I can’t block its users, unless I go 1 by 1. Blocking the communities is big, but not enough.