copygirl

Something else to consider in place of or in addition to a build number could also be using the git commit hash of what you’re building. Though I would only use that for non-stable releases.

For example, stable versions of Zig look like 0.12.1 and then there’s in-development releases like 0.13.0-dev.351+64ef45eb0. It uses semantic versioning where the “pre-release” is dev.351, which includes an incrementing build number, and the “build metadata” is 64ef45eb0, the commit hash it was built from. The latter allows a user to quickly look up the exact commit easily and thus know exactly what they’re using.

What I’m saying is that Microsoft is, in fact, being hostile by limiting OSS builds such as Codium in the ways I’ve mentioned above. I guess that’s how they try to get people to keep using their proprietary build instead.

Version 5 of a software, device, vehicle or such isn’t necessarily better than version 4, and no official definition of the word “version” require this, either. If I may make another anology: You may pick one of 5 different versions of an outfit to wear, and even though they were labeled in the order they were made, from 1 to 5, none are inherently, objectively better than any other. In the case of UUIDs there are versions that are meant to supercede others, but also simply alternatives for different use-cases. Anyone with access to some up-to-date information can learn what each version’s purpose is.

except for visual studio code

But also:

• Telemetry everywhere
• Not permitted to use the official marketplace with OSS builds
• Not able to use certain extensions (like C# debugger) with OSS builds

Though I’ve been very happy about the direction .NET and C# have been going, especially the licensing.

Not to be pedantic but I think the headline is fine.

If you simulated a fire in a building for training purposes and upon activating the fire alarm, it got broadcast to emergency services when it shouldn’t, you did accidentally broadcast the fire alarm, simulated or not.

The “accidentally” already implies it was done in error, suggesting it was not an emergency. On the other hand, if it was a real emergency, and just wasn’t meant to be publicly broadcasted, I feel like the headline would’ve looked different.

I use uBlock Origin + vaft from TwitchAdSolutions, which is currently working pretty well for me. I’ve had some issues before, and every now and then the stream can freeze up when an ad is played. But it’s so much better than having to endure even a second of those mind-rotting ads.

I might be too old-school for this but this video felt like it focused on AI assisted programming and I really don’t give a damn.

It could just have something to do with the fact that many people think ads are not only annoying but also highly manipulative, creating artificial needs in people, a tool to make already successful and rich companies even richer, … and the surrounding technology to power them is unethical, hoarding tons of information, building profiles of people, tracking which websites they visit, what search terms they use, …

When people talk about blocking ads, being frustrated about them showing up, it’s just kind of disrespectful to be like “well you could just pay for the service, you know?”. Besides, who knows how much actually ends up in the creators’ pockets.

And you can use the with expression to create clones of the object with some properties modified.

Zig hasn’t been mentioned yet, so I’m just going to drop that here.

I personally have enjoyed the meta-programming, the ease of integrating with C libraries, and like that it’s pretty straight-forward to compile.

From what I know, F-Droid compiles apps from source so you can be sure that the code you’re running is actually made from the source code that it claims to be built from. On most other platforms, the developers could be uploading malicious programs that actually have the code changed from what’s shared online as its source code. Then add the fact that other developers can and do look at the code, and what changes are made from version to version.

On Mastodon, when you follow another user on another instance, your instance will send a request to the other, to be notified of new posts made by that user, as well as posts they’ve boosted. When such a new post arrives, a copy will be created on your instance so it can be displayed without nagging the original instance again for the post’s content and such.

Lemmy is similar of course, since it uses the same underlying protocol (ActivityPub). Think of communities as “special users”. Whenever someone creates a post or reply, the community will boost it, so it ends up on every instance where a user has subscribed to that community.

This part I’m not entirely sure on but I believe it’s how things work: The other way to send messages around other than subscription is obviously to send messages directly. In ActivityPub there’s a field that specifies the recipients of a message. When such a message is created, it is pushed to the instances of the recipients. On Lemmy, the recipient is the community you’re posting to. On Mastodon, the recipients are filled with all the users that you @-mention in the contents of the message. So for a Mastodon user to post to Lemmy, they have to mention the community, which is why you see some posts that contain the community’s handle.

Because you can’t follow / subscribe to users on Lemmy, the posts of Mastodon users that don’t involve Lemmy never end up being “federated”, meaning Lemmy instances don’t get notified of these posts, so they don’t end up being “copied”. This is the same on Mastodon by the way. Unless your instance sends out a request to fetch posts from an unknown user, it doesn’t know about their posts, since nobody so far has cared about them.

This makes sense because if you were to try and store all the content from the fediverse you would need a LOT of storage for little gain. Similarly it would be bad to never store the content and always fetch it, because that would generate a bunch of additional traffic, which especially small instances would suffer from.

To summarize: Lemmy doesn’t display Mastodon posts because it doesn’t have a mechanism to subscribe to those users.

Surely you know more than the lawyers Dolphin got help from.

Gitea was taken over by a for-profit company, Forgejo is a fork by the previous maintainers to continue it fully FOSS without any of the shenanigans. See also their FAQ.

How long have you been part of the fediverse? (A term which tends to not be capitalized, by the way. *nerd snort*) It’s not about you getting to interact with every instance using just one account. It’s about putting the power into the hands of ordinary people. Including the power to associate or disassociate with certain people, communities, and content. That includes an admin’s ability to go “I see you’re not sufficiently moderating your instance. We will defederate until you’ve taken steps to ensure your instance sufficiently moderates with common-sense rules.”. Whether that is due to some content policies or to block an instance from which a ton of spam originates.

Just how with email a provider can choose to block or automatically mark-as-spam any email coming from a server they don’t trust, for example because it’s a known source of spam. It’s actually how a lot of the internet works. And it works as long as well-intentioned people are in positions to make such decisions. And if a server or service goes rogue, they get the equivalent of defederated.

Incorrect. I’m fine with instances that host a variety of content. Including stuff I don’t want to see.

However, I’m allowed to join an instance whose admins take a stance against bigotry for example, and therefore take better care that such content isn’t allowed to freely go through their instance. That way I and a thousand of other users don’t need to all block the content they don’t like manually. It’s my instance admin’s choice, and my choice to go with their instance.

This was perhaps a bad example. Though there’s the possibility of posts not being marked for NSFW that should be (and the instance not enforcing such), and ones that are mostly harmless but still labelled as NSFW for one reason or another. One person’s NSFW is not the same as another person’s NSFW. Feel free to replace the example rule with something else.

If you want your freedom – whatever that means to you – you go to an instance that represents those values. Admins that run their own instance get to decide how they moderate that instance. And that includes blocking (or defederating) whole instances, communities, or individual users. You don’t have to sign up to one that does something you don’t like.

Besides, you don’t seem to understand the importance of moderation. If it wasn’t for the ability to defederate, we’d have tons of fake instances with fake users creating fake posts. Not to mention people going out of their way to make others feel miserable. Do they have the right to spew their hatred? I have my opinion, but it doesn’t matter. I happen to also have the right to join an instance that has a policy to take care of that stuff so I can browse for things that actually interest me.

Allow the admins of the instance to enforce their rules?

Say you have an instance with a “no-NSFW” rule, for people who don’t want to randomly come across NSFW communities. Their admins could take care of the curating of rule-breaking NSFW communities without having to resort to defederating from the entire instance. This doesn’t have to be an outright block but just a filter that could prevent the community to show up in “All”.

Falling in love? In this economy?