I mean, the minimum you need is some authentication mechanism, a secure certificate, an authenticated endpoint to send a live data feed to, an endpoint to query a given live data feed from, maybe a website to serve the whole thing for people that don’t have their own tool for reading and playing back a live data feed…

…and the infrastructure to distribute that data feed from ingest to content delivery. Easy.

(Note: easy does not mean cheap. Even if a live data feed ingest and delivery was easy to implement (which I doubt it is), you’d skip buffering (to reduce memory demands) and only used a single server (to spare such stupid things as distributed networks, load balancing, redundancy or costs for scaling cloud solutions), you’d still have computational overhead of network operations and of course a massive data throughput.)

Ternary if?then:else

That community is… something. For every funny or good complaint there’s a dozen whine posts, mostly by the same person. Did someone piss in their coffee or are they the probably least lucrative M$ shill ever?

Walking home from her raid on its lair

Actually, it would be OOP.suck(ddplf.getBalls())

I always use butterflies

The bean is a sculpture whose “reflective surface was inspired by liquid mercury” (Source). This post implies it’s actually made of mercury and has now melted. The linked webpage says it’s made of steel, but as we all know, it takes a lot of heat to melt steel beans.

The rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs was doing shit at his parties that got him currently awaiting trial for sex trafficking.

Source: https://midwest.social/comment/13505845

A lot of data throughput and buffer just for ingesting and distributing the live streams themselves, technical and business administration to keep things running, moderation to ensure compliance with content laws and data protection regulation, and then there’s still all the other fancy features major platforms offer if you want to compete for users.

Multiple resolution options with server-side rescaling for users with slower connections? Graphics computing power.
Store past broadcasts? Massive amounts of data storage capacity.
Social features? Even more moderation.

And we haven’t even touched on the monetary issue of “How do you pay for all that?” and all its attached complexity. You could be running the nicest platform in the world, but without any funding, it won’t run very long.

Forming groups is still important. We need it to find our place in the world. There is no single truth, therefore we argue and fight.

Absolutely. Forming groups defined by commonality is good. Discussions are important to check our own biases and misconceptions. Diversity is key to avoiding stagnation. Conflict can create opportunity for growth.

War, above all else, destroys. There are many great things we can do with each other that don’t involve violence.

Not saying anything you said is wrong, btw. Just wanted to state why we still have this stuff.

Good point, adding nuance is important.

I think we - collectively, as humanity, not any particular subgroup - need to get over that greedy, jealous, tribal “us vs. them” mindset that feeds nationalism, turns demographies against each other and leads to that security dilemma in the first place.

It made sense when our individual survival hinged on competing for the best land, subsequently forming groups to further that claim and drive others from their land to increase your own margin of subsistence.

But with modern farming, logistics, administrative capabilities and real-time communications across the globe, I think we should be able to do better by working together instead of against each other.

Of course, that would require people who like power to stop reaching for more and more, and that is an issue I don’t think I need to lay out in detail.

living in Germany

Your username and instance kinda gave it away, comfortable cushion ;-)

But I also like the saying “If you want peace prepare for war”.

It’s the cornerstone of the Security Dilemma: Increasing your own state’s security by increasing military strength may be threatening to other states that don’t know whether you’re just improving defenses or gearing up for an offensive war.

Particularly in pre-modern times where land was more valuable (compared to developing the land you already have) and battle wasn’t so destructive, war was more profitable, the threat was real. With the development of modern arms and mass mobilisation escalating the scale and destruction of war, the distinction between defensive and offensive militarisation is even harder to tell, and even though it’s not as lucrative, we haven’t outgrown the martial impulses so the issue remains.

So because you want to be safe, you improve your military. Because you improve your military, your neighbour fears for their own safety, so they improve theirs. This is why international relations and diplomacy are so important to prevent a runaway arms race.