Just to be clear before I respond to the rest of this comment, my position is that Peertube solves the sustainability problem and in no way am I suggesting Peertube will replace YouTube

I do not expect the vast majority of channels to survive the end of YouTube, as is normal for any paradigm shift.

P2P is completely achievable using NAT Hole Punching. I have no clarity on if Peertube is doing this but since there’s already a trusted server involved it would be silly not to.

In a hypothetical, unlikely future where YouTube dies and people generally move to Peertube, I expect the majority of content creators to pay small fees to have instances host their videos. I expect small, free but restricted instances will continue to be the home for amateur videographers as they are today. The more technical folk will likely self host, and groups of like minded creators will pool efforts to run group specialist instances (not unlike Nebula).

Frankly the most likely scenario is YouTube dies and everyone starts posting videos to Instagram or Tiktok or something equivalently anti user.

Content creators. It’s hard to host everyone’s videos, and it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary, as it prevents new entrants. It’s not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted). It becomes harder when you suddenly become popular, a situation which Peertube explicitly compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers, which scales with popularity.

Signal makes it’s own bed like YouTube by being a single centralised server for everyone. Nobody ever asks “who pays for the servers” when it comes to Matrix or XMPP

Not precisely what you’re after but https://sepiasearch.org/

Peertube has already delivered the sustainable model: creators host their own videos and viewers assist distribution.

The protocol was released in 2019. The LLM was released in 2024.

Arch can absolutely use other init systems though it is officially unsupported

Monty Hall Problem, for those who know that name

Honestly I think this is a gap in the community.

They’re more project focussed but you could consider https://hackster.io/ or https://hackaday.io/.

Maybe consider cross posting this question to an open hardware community? Such as !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml

(And ping me if you find one, I’m collecting open hardware websites)

They’re trying

Hah. Our textbook market isn’t quite as captured. They run from $50-$350. I have about 100 textbooks and a bit under 200 books total.

I have a physical book collection worth thousands of dollars. The only party that has profited off me is Elsevier.

Results

For those who don’t want to open threads, it’s a link to a paper on energy efficiency of programming languages.

https://xkcd.com/1109/

Sounds like a good time to revive HouseFyre

They deliberately removed code search for not logged in users almost immediately. Just recently they removed cloning without an account, so now updating my computer requires signing in to github.

They have been awful stewards.

Git doesn’t have a concept of a preferred repository; your local copy is exactly as valid to git as a git server hosted on github.

The originally intended workflow as I understand it involved generating patches which would be shared via a mailing list.

In practice there will generally be a repository that’s considered “canonical” for a project, whether that’s the one on the computer of the lead maintainer or some hosted solution.

A basic git server is essentially just a repository owned by a restricted user with SSH access granted to maintainers.. This can allow users to push and pull from a centralised or semi-centralised repository in much the same way as GitHub.

It supports other hardware including more “embedded” systems. I’ve run it on a RasPi clone and on an F4 Clone

Mixed material objects cannot (generally) be recycled. This is focused on multi-material prints, so you can easily split out your PLA and TPU etc. for recycling. Also good if you’re directly recycling into new filament.

It’s for separating materials for recycling, not compost.