I’ve been out of the loop on games for a while but ReactOS may be worth a look.

The 1st ½ of your comment sounds accurate. But…

And also in Foss there are highly opinionated software where the devs completely ignore users, ban them from GitHub when they post issues,

Right, but to be clear non-free s/w is worse - you can’t even reach the devs, generally, and there is no public bug tracker. FOSS is an improvement in this regard because at least there is a reasonable nuclear option (forking). The nuclear option for non-free software is writing it yourself from scratch.

That all sounds accurate enough to me… but thought I should comment on this:

However - in larger enterprises there’s so much more, you get the whole SDL maturity thing going - money is invested into raising the quality of the whole development lifecycle and you get things like code reviews, architects, product planning, external security testing etc. Things that cost time, money and resources.

It should be mentioned that many see testing as a cost, but in fact testing is a cost savings. In most situations, you only spend some money on testing in order to dodge a bigger cost: customers getting burnt in a costly way that backfires on the supplier. Apart from safety-critical products, this is the only business justification to test. Yet when budgets get tightened, one of the first cuts many companies make is testing – which is foolish assuming they are doing testing right (in a way that saves money by catching bugs early).

Since the common/general case with FOSS projects is there is no income that’s attached to a quality expectation (thus testing generates no cost savings) - the users are part of the QA process as free labor, in effect :)

So does that mean jlai.lu is blocked by lecho.be? I figured it was more likely that lecho.be was blocking Tor, thus blocking my connection.

has there been a consensus among these self-style altruists what defines altruism?

I’m not sure that consensus would be needed, but apparently it’s defined as one person’s vision. Altruism itself is selfless behavior but (TIL) effective altruism is apparently an anti-poverty mission specifically.

I heard vague claims about impact on generations in the far future and I kind of tuned out at that point.

A charitable movement can impact people the day of the donation, or far in the future. Guardian mentions GiveDirectly, which is a program to distribute directly to poor people.

This reveals, for most scholars of humor, that the superiority theory misses the mark. After all, sometimes things are funny without resulting from superiority, and some feelings of superiority don’t make things funny.[4]

It seems the author misunderstands “The Superiority Theory of Humor”. It’s not superiority in itself that’s funny – it’s the thought or projection of superiority (esp. miscalculation/misplacement thereof) where humor manifests. The banana peel slip seems like a bad example. You’re not laughing at someone’s failure to see and avoid the hazard; you’re laughing at the situation that the person is going through… that they were just walking along thinking in deep concentration about something other than their path and they are suddenly going for an unplanned ride.

There mere fact that people are fallible is not funny. Though I say that as an adult. Perhaps there is a schadenfreude factor among children or less developed brains.

🙄

That discussion is here if you want to go beyond emoji.

Indeed. And it’s a needlessly destructive form of sanitization. That is, sanitizing properly normally means replacing the special characters with an encoding to ensure literals render.

I think this is a regression. IIRC, there was a time when a removal only removed it from the timeline. You could still reach it via the modlog. IIRC. But those days are gone. It’s a shame because it’s important for the community to be able to evaluate the mod’s decision making.

I’ve even seen cases where an over-zealous mod gets embarrassed by the mod log and purges the mod log itself to remove traces of the censorship itself. I suppose that’s only possible if the mod is also an admin.

I appreciate the detailed feedback, which I think probably answers my question as well as possible from a utilitarian standpoint to a usable extent.

I primarily needed to verify that when speaking at rallies I would not be falsely informing people or pushing an indefensible position. If a public service is made exclusive even per a loose interpretation whereby objectionable conditions stand as a barrier, it seems fair enough to at least claim that rights are being violated all the way to the courthouse, and inside the courthouse, until a judge determines otherwise. You gave me the confidence I was after.

Ah, I missed art.24. I suspect in the US vacations would be regulated on a per-state basis. The right to vacations is easily defensible, though I wonder about the “with pay” clause. Some jobs pay high enough wages that income would not in itself be an obstacle to vacations, but then those often tend to be the kinds of jobs that include paid vacations anyway. People getting a wage that is less than living are probably getting shafted on that one in some parts of the US particularly if they are in the gig economy with the chickenizing going on (a throwback from the poultry industry where people are falsely independent to circumvent employment rights).

I guess where I live there’s always offline alternatives, even the parking meters still accept coins even though they also take credit cards.

Example ① concerns being able to block off parking for one’s self. E.g. imagine a row of street parking with meters, and you have a project to renovate your house. A crane needs to use that space. It’s not a matter of feeding meters. You go to city hall and pay (e.g.€100/day) to reserve a section of parking in advance with guaranteed access. City workers come and cover the meters, they post a temporary “no parking” sign, etc. Now today if you go to city hall they just point to a QR code on a wall. That’s it. No more over the counter service. If you can’t work with that you’re stuffed… you don’t get to reserve parking for a crane and your renovation is effectively blocked by an asshole in public administration who assumes not only that everyone is online, but that everyone’s browser is Chromium &, that everyone is okay with sharing their home address with Microsoft (or whatever info traverses Outlook), and whatever other tech limitations the website has.

I think my region also has the problem you refer to (of parking meters not taking cash). That’s similar but less of an injustice. Renovating a house is more important than convenient parking for a personal car.

In any case it’s not like countries actually provide all of the other articles. For the US, vacation and healthcare aren’t provided, so it’s not surprising the other articles are not followed either. It’s not really a law.

Healthcare comes in many forms. I would say the US does not guarantee or provide preventative healthcare, but if you show up to ER at any hospital in the US with a gunshot wound (for example), it’s illegal for the hospital to refuse treatment. They cannot make insurance a condition of emergency care. Although if someone were to argue emergency care alone does not adequately satisfy Article 25’s entitlement to “medical care”, I would not object. I would hope they could use art.25 to force preventative healthcare to some extent.

I’m not sure why you mention vacation. Article 23 covers employment rights, which includes unemployment protection but not vacations AFAICT.

The thesis of the thread is essentially to fight against digital exclusion. Part of that fight is to get a big spotlight on the infringement of existing rights.

It’s very rare that I find an online public service that’s well run. I demand the same level of privacy protection that I had in the offline procedures. This implies the ability to use Tor in the very least among other things like not having to expose email to Microsoft. Most normies are not even technically competent enough to know what Tor is. The normies on my side of this fight are excluded for other reasons, like tech illiteracy. Without the tech illiterates on my side I would be isolated and trivially easy to marginalize.

The only practical solution is having an offline option for every public service. It’s impossible to train public administrations to be competent enough to process Tor traffic, to run in-house mail servers & install PGP so sensitive info is not exposed to surveillance capitalists, and then to also train all tech illiterate citizens to be able to use these systems. It’s impossible. Even if it were possible, how do you serve cash payers without bank accounts? Offline procedures are the only way to include everyone under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 21.

In a lot of cases, they can accommodate everyone but simply neglect to.

E.g. the public parking service was originally offline, thus proving they had the resources to accommodate offline people. They recently decided to take that away and exclusively serve online people. If they somehow lost resources and have to choose one or the other, choosing offline option accommodates more people because online people can also function offline (but not vice-versa). I’m also not sure how resources fall short, because you don’t get to reserve parking for free. You pay a fee to reserve parking, so the people are bringing the resources to cover their own request.

The online option is more exclusive than the offline option. Lines are being drawn in ways that create inequality. If they need to save money, they can save money in ways that have equal impact. E.g. instead of a public school excluding some people from education entirely, they can shorten or eliminate gym classes so equality is maintained amid resource shortages.

Great find! Glad to see there are some onion hosts as well.

Any idea how to adapt the monero.stackexchange link in the sidebar? The code.whatever.social page cannot handle that link apparently because it does not lead to a specific thread.

There are bug reports and then there is user support. There’s some confusion because I filed a bug report in a user support community (because there is no bug reporting community).

Indeed the user support solution is to either request that the admin to change the slur filter config, or change instances. But the purpose of the thread was to report a bug in an in-band way (without interacting with a Microsoft asset [#deleteGithub]).

I can see your point in many situations but when I say I am the one b*tching (myself… in the 1st person), in this context I am not saying I am acting badly myself. So the “women are bad” narrative doesn’t follow. In this case the word merely serves as a more expressive complaint.

If someone were to talk about someone else b*tching, it might well be what you’re saying, as they are complaining about someone else complaining & maybe they oppose that other person complaining or their aggressive style thereof.

GDPR gives people a fair amount of protection and it is enforced.

Not in my experience. I have filed complaints of ~20+ GDPR violations under article 77 going years back. Not a single one of them enforced to date. These cases just sit idle for years. The problem is the GDPR gives no recourse when DPAs fail to honor article 77 obligations. It’s toothless.

https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

That shows a low count of cherry-picked enforcement actions. If you had a way to get a count of unenforced reports it would likely be an embarrassing comparison.

You should simply pickup a few dictionaries and recognize there are multiple meanings, rather than cherry picking whatever definition plays into whatever narrative you’re fixated on. Have a look at mainstream definitions that most people are commonly working with.

One dictionary defines it as “the feeling of hating that a man has for women”. Another dictionary: “hatred of women”. Another: “Hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women”. Did alternate definitions not survive your whatever cleansing you’ve undergone? Is there a specific book that caused you to deviate from common definitions?

I would avoid trying to pin down absolutes. If you’re looking for absolutes you won’t get that from me.

However generally when a woman uses the word it’s not a reflection of a derogatory attitude toward women but rather just one or a few they are referring to in particular. Of course self hate & hating one’s own people w/same attributes is certainly possible, which is why you’re not getting any absolutes here.