The way posts are shared between instances is by user subscription. For example, if there's a community on Lemmy and a Kbin user subscribes to it, Kbin will then receive new posts from that Lemmy instance for that community.
So if no one on an instance is subscribed to that community, new posts won't flow to that instance. And then if you do subscribe to it, the instance will only automatically receive new posts. Federation will not back-fill older content.
I have seen this happen on Android when using the PWA with Firefox. If I open it, then switch to other apps, and then come back to it hours later, it immediately crashes. When I open it again, it will work fine, unless I switch away from it without closing it again for a few hours, where it will crash again.
Might be related to your issue, or it might be an issue with how Firefox does PWAs on mobile. I have seen a few other bugs with Firefox PWAs, so I assumed it was a Firefox problem.
You can click the hamburger menu icon (the 3 horizontal lines) on the very upper left of the page and it will open the sidebar overtop of the current view. Then you can scroll down just a little and find the send message button.
I think inheritance served as a good stepping stone to features like traits in Rust. I spent most of my early career in C and C++, and given just those 2, I would pick C++ for classes alone, even though that's nominally "picking inheritance." Because with C++ classes you can define interfaces and compose those objects better than you can with just functions and structures in C (no callback functions and void pointers, thank you).
So it's about the ergonomics of the language, and I think we as developers are collectively growing and exploring, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and with Rust and Go we're trying out those traits and interfaces we figured out in object oriented languages without dragging along classical inheritance. Given another 5, 10, 20 years, I'm sure we will have figured out what doesn't work in Rust and Go and see new languages dropping those concepts in favor of newer, even more ergonomic ones.
Arguing from a position of physics, like this author is, I didn't think dualism was still a serious theory with modern proponents.
As hinted in the article by mentioning the fundamental particles, there's no room in the known laws of physics to fit interactions between the neurons of the brain and some as yet undiscovered particles making up the substance of the engine driving qualia, whatever it would be besides the brain. Interactions with undiscovered particles would require energy, and, by conversation of energy, we should see energy of the brain disappearing (this is how we posited the existence of neutrinos, which were later discovered), but we don't.
Likewise, if this qualia engine were driving neural activity, even if the qualia engine were non-physical, neurons still are. So at the lowest level of the neurons, the qualia engine would have to trigger electrical activity in the neurons, which would be an unaccounted for source of energy, and we also don't see that.
I mean the following question in good faith because I legitimately did not know serious proponents of dualism still existed, but do dualists have any explanations for these problems?