Yeah, I don’t get the hate and intentional division being sowed there.

I’m not a fan of Ubuntu since they went all Thanos Snap (the final straw was replacing deb packages in apt with snap stubs), but I can applaud that they’re using Linux.

Just seems like low effort, pointless gatekeeping to me.

So you’re stereotyping a country of 341 million people based off of your personal interactions with a few of them on the internet?

We’re not a monoculture, bud. How would you feel if I asked “Why does it seem like Europeans have become so judgmental and preachy in the past years?”

Or, you know, just moving there and voting those a-holes out of office? The average default Lemming reaction being violence is getting old.

Now, now, now. Let’s not be too quick to call it “disinformation” or “propaganda”. It could just be Respectful Dissent. Every Opinion Matters. /s

RCS is a whole can of worms. It’s presented like a carrier services (and carriers are in the mix, though often just for authentication), but it’s really a Google service. With Android, RCS connects directly to google’s mothership.

I believe on iOS those go to Apple’s servers which “peers” with google. Maybe search the RCS endpoint for Apple and see what comes up?

To get the current logged-in user’s details, that’s actually retrieved from /api/v3/site for…reasons, I guess?

Your function can remain the same, but change the api endpoint to /site Also, the user details will be in the my_user key from get site response.

Is there a reason you’re not using the lemmy-js-client? That will take care of a lot of the low-level fetching for you (and has TypeDocs which help you to know what response / form data is needed).

Your Original Function, Slightly Modified

 async function getLoggined() {
   try {
        const response = await fetch(`${api}/site`, {
            method: "GET",
            headers: {
                "Content-Type": "application/json",
                "Authorization": `Bearer ${lemmyToken}`
            }
        });
        alert(`Bearer ${lemmyToken}`);
        alert(await response.text());
        const data = await response.json();
        return data.my_user;
    } catch (error) {
        alert(`error while loading profile: ${error}`);
    }
}

Listening to whoever reads his eulogy will probably also keep people on edge.

how much mass we’ve lost to space with all of the shit we’ve flown to and let in space.

Shooting from the hip here, but probably a tiny, minuscule fraction of a fraction of a percent. I’d venture a guess we’ve lost more mass in atmospheric gases being ionized and stripped away from solar radiation than we have launched from the surface.

That was what I assumed it boiled down to, yeah, and that’s where I agree with them. The rest of it, though, is indefensible and sounds exactly like what Meta just announced with their recent content moderation changes (read: it stinks).

Just saw your edits:

We’re not going to allow queer people to be attacked using the same old tropes. That’s not what this is about. The coincidence with Meta is unfortunate timing.

This is generally about manipulating people through echo chambers. It’s about allowing users to counter misinformation, particularly from moderators.

I’m not saying allowing attacks on queer people was the intention of this policy, but as-written, this policy absolutely has that side effect and more. The fact that the policy was so easy to interpret as being similar to Meta’s just goes to show how poorly written and poorly thought out this policy is.

As-written, this policy leaves too much open to interpretation, makes no mention of how it meshes with the existing TOS, removes agency from moderators to keep their communities on point and civil, and is generally punishing all moderators/communities for the actions of a few. Furthermore, forcing mods to “debate” every crackpot claim just lends credence to the claim that it’s something even worth discussing.

Again, I highly encourage the team to reconsider this entire change and go back to the drawing board for a solution to a problem that only seems to affect a minority of communities.

Maybe native implementation could be something developers could work on in the future?

Can’t rule that out, but it would likely be optional at best.

LibreTranslate is pretty heavy to host, so I’m not sure how many instances would want to enable that. There are some hosted LibreTranslate instances, but I’m not sure how overloaded/performant they tend to be and/or if they’re suitable for a bunch of people to plug a Lemmy client into.

FWIW, I run a local LT service for myself, and it’s deployed via Docker. It’s not too difficult to setup, but yeah, you’ll need to be comfortable with Linux, Docker, and probably Nginx/Caddy/etc basics before tackling that.

I had hoped that the corporate control over the web was to blame for this, but I’m not so sure anymore.

I can’t say with 100% certainty that it has or hasn’t, but I can tell you that at least in the BBS, IRC/AIM/ICQ, individual forum days, there were certainly crackpots, but we weren’t all mixed together on a common platform that insisted on giving them equal “airtime” or worse.

I think that your example could fall under the umbrella of hate speech, and thus removal would be entirely justifiable. Even if it doesn’t qualify as hate speech, moderators still have the discretion to remove it for a variety of other reasons.

From the post:

Moderators, if someone is responding to many root comments in every thread, that’s not “in a smaller proportion” and you’re free to do what you like about that. If their “counter” narrative posts are making up half of the posts to your community, you’re free to address that. If they’re belligerent or rude, of course you know what to do. If they’re just saying something you don’t like, respectfully, and they’re not spamming it, use your words instead of your moderation abilities.

From the way the post is worded, and it was announced officially, it sounds like as long as they’re being civil and not spamming, it’s fair game. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong, but nothing has yet been officially clarified.

Edit: LW has since edited/clarified that would be considered an attack on a group, but that just goes to show how poorly written and poorly thought out this policy is.

In general, I believe that the negative effects of overmoderation are more problematic for this platform than the negative effects of allowing idiots to get downvoted for saying dumb shit.

I’ve only seen a handful of communities that were truly over-moderated (read: badly moderated). If it’s just a handful, then maybe deal with them directly and/or let the Fediverse do its thing. Badly moderated communities (and instances) can, do, and will drive people away to alternatives.

Communities are created with rules and expectations for a reason: be it a goal, to maintain a vibe/safe space, or whatever it may be. Vote manipulation in Lemmy is also a thing that exists. I even posted about one campaign I dug up; those never went away, merely changed tactics. That is to say that depending on votes to set the record straight is an extremely flawed assumption when bad actors can manipulate it in such a way.

At the current moment, there is zero consensus among the human race as to what objective reality actually is.

Agreed, but why do you think that is? Could it be because for years other online platforms have allowed nonsense after nonsense to flourish, often boosted by the platform itself for engagement purposes?

I respectfully disagree that I am over-reacting (in fact, I’m deliberately under reacting).

Back to my example based off of Meta’s recent changes: Someone comes in saying gay people are just mentally all and should seek help: is that an attack on a group or “respectful dissent”? Going by the letter of this post, I really have no idea even though it’s clearly an attack on a group. I absolutely will not “debate” my existence to every troll with an internet connection - I simply will not. Even though I’m not a mod of a community (on LW) where that’s likely to happen, I do not want the mod’s hands tied in that regard.

Feel free to check my comment history in this community on prior announcements; you’ll see I’ve defended pretty much every site-wide action the LW Team has taken because I’ve seen the bigger picture, the merit to it, and/or understood where they were coming from.

I cannot defend this one, though.

If someone submits something counter to objective reality, mods should have every right to squash that as misinformation even if they’re not spamming it. Sure, we can’t make them drink an antidote, but we should not be stopped from preventing others from drinking the poison.

A lot of attacks like that are common and worth refuting once in awhile anyway. It can be valuable to show the response on occasion.

Are you referring to the example I used re: Meta and someone popping into an LGBT+ community to say that being gay is a mental illness? Because that just sounds like feeding the trolls to me. I definitely don’t want an echo chamber and welcome more varied opinions/positions, but my tolerance is zero when it comes to those operating in bad faith (a quick look at their submission history easily confirms/refutes that).

I sincerely hope your team revises this or applies it more granularly where the problem actually exists because I feel like this is just creating a whole new set of problems.

We’re going to allow some “flat earth” comments. We’re going to force some moderators to accept some “flat earth” comments. The point of this is that you should be able to counter those comments with words, and not need moderation/admin tools to do so.

I get that those are examples, and I am pretty sure I understand the problem this is trying to address. Like, I get that.

But, aside from the aforementioned “many root comments in every thread”, where do we draw the line with regard to misinformation and/or trolling? Are we expected to refute every crackpot claim and leave misinformation, conspiracy theories, and the like on display? I feel like that’s just a recipe for gish-galloping mods to death while opening the door to mis-information.

What if, to use the recent example from Meta, someone comes into a LGBT+ community and says they think being gay is a mental illness and /or link some quack study? Is that an attack on a group or is it “respectful dissent”? According to common sense and the LW TOS Section 1, it’s the former. According to how this new policy is written, it seems to be the latter.

Again, I understand what this is trying to accomplish, but I feel the way it’s being handled is not the best way to achieve that.

This is actually one of my New Year’s resolutions lol. Right now, my backups are local and my offsites are a hodgepodge of cloud services (basically holding encrypted container blobs of my stuff). Not ideal.

I’m looking at signing up for rsync.net since a lot of my backups are done via rsync anyway. Plan is to keep my local backups as-is and rsync them to rsync.net.

sadly he doesn’t give any details, or any updates.

Heh, yeah. That’s the part I’m most interested in. I’m sure I could buy the replacement batteries and they’d work fine at first, but after a year? That’s what I’m curious about.

APC do a really crappy small one for telecoms cabinets, but none for servers

I wonder if the lower discharge current capability of LFP batteries is why? That’s the one thing I’ve read fairly consistently about them is that they can’t supply the same high current as lead acids but are otherwise superior in every way. Now that you mention it, the only place I’ve ever really seen LFP UPSs for servers is in the big, central UPSs where they can run batteries in series for a much higher voltage.

e.g. most of the LFP UPSs I see max out at 1000 VA where 1500 is more typical for lead-acid UPSs.

I’m not making excuses for Judge Merchan, but it’s easy to say what you’re saying when you’re not personally dealing with a guy who can and will send an angry mob of violent nutjobs to your house. Something to keep in mind.

Photon has a setting option to integrate LibreTranslate.

I haven’t played with it yet, but I would assume that does what you want. Other than third party clients or browser extensions offering translation capability, I don’t think there’s any native way to do that.

Switched to Fossify Gallery not too long ago. It’s plain, simple, and just works.