A really simplified explanation: the wind pushes the kite, which unreels the kite string, which spins the generator shaft to generate electricity.

When the kite string runs out, the kite folds up or changes its orientation so the wind isn’t pushing it anymore, and the generator reels in the kite string. This takes less power than the kite previously generated because the kite isn’t pushing against the wind while it’s being reeled in.

When the kite string is reeled in far enough, the kite catches the wind again, the kite string starts unreeling again, repeat as long as there’s wind.

It’s actually, I think, a really creative implementation of wind power.

But people already have a public place to appeal. This sub, the sub you linked, pretty much any other instance that has a meta discussion community. But posting here, or there, isn’t an actual appeal process - it’s just publicly complaining about administrators.

And that was the answer to OP’s question: that there’s no single fediverse-wide place to appeal a ban, you have to follow instance specific appeal procedures, if they exist, and/or contact the instance’s administrators directly.

Which is a good thing, because it helps keep the verse decentralized.

I think, if there was a single location where the fediverse started telling people “if you get banned, post here to appeal”, users would expect some sort of formal response to their post, and get upset when people tell them posting there doesn’t actually do anything. Which would be bad. And if that location could do anything to encourage administrators to reverse ban decisions, via peer pressure or otherwise, that would also be bad, because it would compromise the independence of instances. That is to say, a fediverse wide appeal community would be at best useless and at worst harmful to the fediverse.

So I think the only appropriate response to “I was banned, what can I do” is “that’s between you and the people who banned you”.

I think any sort of fediverse-wide appeal community, or process, would risk compromising the whole point of the fediverse, ie, decentralization. The fact that admins have the final say on their own instances is part of what keeps the largest instances from controlling smaller ones and keeps the fediverse free of centralized control.

I mean, can you imagine a coalition of the largest instances coming together and telling a small instance “the appeal community agreed this user was banned unfairly, unban them or we’ll all defederate you”? Because I can imagine that sequence of events, if an appeal community got any kind of formal backing from the big instances, and that would pretty much end decentralization.

I think “we” (secular Westerners) are more likely to appropriate spiritual indigenous narratives, take them out of context, and trivialize them into meaninglessness - as the article describes we did with the concept of mindfulness - than we are to erase them. And I think this will happen because we, secular Westerners, are living lives devoid of spiritual meaning, and it’s terribly tempting to steal other people’s beliefs in the hope we can find a fraction of their meaning in life.

And though I’m sure people online are going to go full Reddit atheist on me and tell me belief in a higher power is ignorant and primitive, every society in human history that we know anything about has either had some sort of belief in higher powers or has aggressively suppressed such belief, and that belief served a function of social cohesion that a lot of the left no longer have.

Honestly, I think part of the reason Trump won - and part of the reason populist, religious nationalism is surging worldwide, Trump being just one example - is that the secular West threw out its own spiritual narratives without replacing them with anything. We condemned Christianity as ignorant, bigoted, and repressive, but we didn’t create anything in its place to serve its role. We walked away from the churches, which were the “third places” of our towns, the centers of our social and cultural lives, and we replaced them with what? Coffee shops?

People need something to believe in, and we told them “do your jobs and vote blue, but it won’t matter anyway because the environment is fucked”.

The environmental left needs the warning not to engage in empty spirituality because so many people in it are desperate for the kind of meaning spirituality gives.

Distance also matters a lot. I know where a bunch of little free libraries (no trademark) are in my community, but I don’t visit them because they’re too far away - I can check out books from Libby, I’m not going to take a bus ride for free books 😆

So advertising something like a free farm stand has diminishing returns, because you’re going to reach a lot of people for whom the stuff at the stand isn’t worth the time and effort to get to even if it’s free.

Which is to say, instead of creating a farm stand and then trying to advertise it, one might want to figure out what the people in walking distance want in a farm stand first. Then you set up an email chain or something similar and let the locals know what’s ripe when.

If you’re in the United States, don’t worry. Between tariffs and mass deportations, ordinary grocery store veggies are going to be more expensive than farmers’ markets pretty soon.

My take: a reasonably universal method of payment beats barter, because in a barter economy you can get stuck trying to exchange beans for oars, while the oar maker wants wood or carrots, and the wood cutter needs pumpkins or saw blades instead of peas. :)

Right. And that goes to the point of the video, which is that there was never a barter economy. For the obvious reason you point out: that it would be a pain in the ass for everyone involved. Back in the early days of humanity long distance trade probably consisted of small, high value objects - eg trading tin from Cornwall for glass beads from Egypt - for which there was an understood “exchange rate” to simplify barter, while the day-to-day economics of the community would be more of a gift economy, I give you what you need, you give me what I need, we shame free riders into behaving themselves, and everything works out.

IIRC David Graeber argued that the first money was actually credit - or money as a unit of account - as in “you give me a bushel of beans and now I owe you one set of oars, but you can transfer that debt to the woodcutter in exchange for wood and now I owe him one set of oars instead”. And so forth.

Which might also be in the video, but I didn’t have time to listen to it all the way through either 😆

There are more comments in this thread alone than this MAGA site will probably ever host. (Trolls and spammers motivated by this thread don’t count 😆 )

And honestly? The biggest takeaway from these comments is how many users don’t understand the difference between a protocol and a platform.

The cultural divide between you and I is so great that I don’t even know where to begin to respond. I appreciate you sharing your point of view, at least.

Are you talking about fresh fruit and vegetables? That sounds like you’re wasting a lot - in terms of money, not just in terms of food. It’s pretty easy to tell whether fresh fruit and vegetables are going bad (getting rotten, getting moldy, and so on), and if they’re not going bad they’re fine to use, whether there’s an expiration date or not.

Which is to say, I don’t think reducing food waste is a non-starter, but I do think it’s a matter of bottom-up education and practice (for you, I think that would mean learning how to tell when fruits and vegetables are going bad, and being confident enough in your knowledge that you can feel secure eating fruit and vegetables you didn’t buy recently) as much as it is top-down changes in policy.

At this point, “we should install more solar panels and waste less food” is seen as crazy hippy delusion by the American right.

If anything, the American Democratic Party has swung too far in the other direction, portraying itself as defenders of the status quo - even being willing to move further right - in order to avoid being seen as “crazy hippies”.

Meanwhile, MAGA is a utopian movement - it wants to completely transform America in the image of an idealized Christian conservative past, and doesn’t care what laws it has to break in the process.

The Democrats haven’t been able to effectively challenge MAGA’s utopian vision, because all they offer is a return to the status quo under Biden, and Americans are sick of that status quo. And the American left outside the Democratic Party has been so marginalized (mostly by the Democratic Party) that even mild “let’s do things a little bit better” leftists like Bernie Sanders have no real voice in American politics.

It’s not about being crazy hippies. It’s about having a vision for a better America, a plan to carry it out, and the courage to fight for that plan even when people call you a crazy hippie.

They told us a rising tide lifts all boats. They didn’t tell us they’d strand us on the beach when the tide came in.

Yeah, but you know what they can do? Select the representatives we’re allowed to vote for.

I think there are at least two other reasons, too:

One, sweat equity matters. I know I value pieces of furniture I built myself more than furniture I bought, even though the furniture I bought is better quality - because what I made myself represents my skill and my labor and my commitment. And in a throwaway culture, creating that emotional commitment to clothing or furniture or a home matters.

And two, rammed earth tires require no supply lines, no 3D printers, no expensive tools or complex chemistry, no gas or electricity, even. Just used tires, local dirt, and local labor. If global supply chains fall apart and resources get scarce, people can still build Earthships - and the people who are building them now will be able to teach others how to build them in the future.

I don’t have a source, I’m afraid. I screenshot this off Tumblr and didn’t save the original link, but I know that it was a repost and that this image had been circulating for quite a while.

(clippy) It sounds like you’re trying to build a commune. Would you like help with that? (\clippy)

So I’m going to try to answer your questions, but before I do I want to emphasize the commune issue. It sounds like you’re trying to draw people together, artificially build a community where people live, work, and play in common under the guidance of the same organization, and keep them working together for a lengthy period of, frankly, impoverished struggle.

You’re trying to build a commune from the top down.

The problem with communes is they require a HIGH level of trust between members BEFORE they commit to sharing their lives, finances, and other resources. because of how quickly they can lose everything if the commune’s leadership exploits or fails them, and how easily they can be exploited by free riders and abusers.

And they need members who won’t abuse that trust. Which, historically, has been the sticking point.

When you set up a situation like this, where a person’s employment, housing, and social life all depend on maintaining their status within the same organization, you’re building a fragile edifice. Because if that organization fails, either through bad decisions, exploitation, or reasons out of its control, everyone who relies on it goes down with it.

It’s the opposite of the sustainability and resilience that we need in the uncertain future.

And it attracts a higher than normal share of desperate people, exploiters, and bad actors. Because people with good prospects in society won’t gamble those prospects, and people with strong economic and social ties to society won’t give those up, by submitting their entire lives to the governance of one organization.

Also, I am NOT millennial or Gen-Z so am not going to speak for them - polling people in those demographics directly would be a lot more helpful to you. And since the answers to a lot of your questions will reasonably correlate with age (e.g. older people who already own homes will be MUCH less likely to go live in a yurt), I think adding age ranges to your more formal polling will really help you focus on your core age demographics.

Anyway:

Q1. I’d be mostly unwilling, primarily since I’d have to quit my job, though I’d at least be curious. Not speaking for other generations.

Q2. It depends VERY MUCH on the details your question leaves out. Do I know the person? Can I choose the person? Can I switch people? Being stuck with the same roommate for five years can be fine and can end up a complete nightmare - the situation would need a strong conflict resolution model at minimum.

And then there’s the environment. What are summers and winters like? What heating and cooling exists? What kitchen/bathroom facilities are there? Is there any privacy in this four seasons tent? Is this going to be five years of basically camping?

And what’s the incentive? Do I have to pay for five years of camping? What do I get out of it and do I get any of that reward if I back out before the five years?

PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS. I’m not joining your commune and don’t need the answers. I’m just bringing up things people WILL want to know before committing.

Q3. Holy labor law violations, Batman! I count a max of 72 hours of blue collar + white collar + teaching work in there, and I would absolutely not sign up for anything even remotely near that without seeing a contract with much clearer labor terms and worker’s rights protections. And how exactly is the 8-24 hours of “leisure” separate from the rest of your life during that week? Is this managed leisure of some kind? Honestly that description reminds me of a 996 startup grind and I would come at it with extreme suspicion.

Q4. And there’s the incentive: five years of camping with a roommate and 996 grinding in exchange for the lifetime right to live in a 2000 sq ft house. For me: absolutely not. For younger people who have basically no chance of ever owning a house in this economy? I won’t speak for them, but maaaaaaybe?

Here’s the thing. I don’t believe land should be owned. I believe land should be managed by communities, with usage rights to a home guaranteed to the members of that community who reside in it. So from THAT standpoint your idea sounds like a great prefigurative phase shift from private ownership to community ownership. But it’s still ownership, because we still live under capitalism - and if I don’t own the home I live in, who does? What rights do they have that I don’t? And what happens when we disagree?

And circling back: who decides what counts as “satisfactorily maintaining”, and to whom can someone appeal if that decision-making body abuses its authority? Because if it takes five years to vest in a house, and in year 4 management realizes they’re not going to have enough houses for everybody and decides to kick out half their workers…

Q5. Fuuuuuuck no. This is where a lot of communes fail - because they’re totalizing, and the worker’s homes are linked to the worker’s jobs are linked to the worker’s status in the community, and if the employment fails everything fails. (Look up “The Farm” in Tennessee.) I think a community that relies so heavily on one employer, owner operated or not, multiple divisions or not, is dangerously fragile.

Q6. As long as it takes? Not writing any startup a blank check for my labor. Sorry.

Q7. Won’t change. My problems with this setup have nothing to do with the size of the house.

Q8. Holy shit, no, fuck that. So abusable.

Q9. My first reaction is to fear for victims of domestic violence.

Without going on an incredibly lengthy rant, the best way to protect individual human rights is to guarantee those rights universally, and, if those rights have to be restricted or removed for some reason, have a carefully structured procedure with objective oversight, checks and balances, and an appeal process, before anyone’s rights are restricted. And if this sounds like a court system, that’s because taking away people’s rights for the good of society is what a court system does, and even then there are some rights not even a court can take away. And evicting someone from their home should definitely be under the jurisdiction of such a court system.

A system where someone can lose their place in a commune - lose their home, lose whatever sweat equity they put into the work of the commune, and so on and so forth - if a sufficient number of fellow commune members hate them enough to vote against them, is a bad system. The way it could facilitate racism, bigotry, prejudice of all kinds, should be obvious.

And I bring up domestic violence in particular because I’ve seen too many people somehow find the courage to accuse a well-respected community member of abuse, and end up ostracized, punished, even banished from their community, because the community took the side of the well-respected member and believed they’d falsely accused a good man of a heinous crime.

Direct democracy may not be the worst possible way to run a judicial system, but it’s really, really close.

Q10. That question has so many caveats and unknowns that the answer to it wouldn’t change anything for me.

An attempt at censorship failed because the censors didn’t understand the system they were trying to censor. I think that’s both funny and satisfying.

* If you wanted to summarise this letter on a t-shirt, it would be “People > Protocols > Platforms”. *

Can I get this under Calvin pissing on a Disney logo?

Seriously, this is now my favorite summary of the fediverse.

Nah. Tbh it’s just your average Twitter comment thread, arguing over pointless shit, and then one side of the argument reposting the thread on their own website with a bunch more commentary about why they’re right.

And it’s the side I agree with, but still.

The more I read, the more I shared the author’s frustration here. The person the author was arguing with was claiming that “punk” can’t exist in a utopia, that it needs a dystopian society to rebel against, so because “solarpunk” is a utopian movement it can’t be punk.

Which, one, that’s pedantic bullshit that quibbles about terminology and makes no substantive critique of solarpunk ideas; two, it’s wrong, because solarpunk as a genre does have a dystopia it’s rebelling against, and that dystopia is the modern 21st century capitalist West; and three, there is nothing less punk than trying to gatekeep the definition of “punk”.

Which is to say, the more I read, the more disappointed I was in this article, because there are genuine substantive critiques of solarpunk, eg as an escapist fantasy, as impractical utopianism, and ultimately this whole long article was just an argument about whether we should call solarpunk punk.

But there were some good book recommendations in it, so that’s cool.