Looks like it’s fine, it’s just been quiet.

Yeah bo

Just send a DM to @bot@rss.ponder.cat with something like:

/add {rss_feed} bitofarambler@crazypeople.online

(You have to be a moderator for the community in question)

https://engaging-data.com/baby-name-visualizer/?n=madison&sex=b&data=n

Checks out.

Dude I didn’t pick this weird pedantic fight and get all upset about what Wikipedia says and what a problem it is. You did. Now that it turned out you were making it up, it’s all of a sudden weird for people to care about it. Okay.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-weak-strongman

Basically, this strategy Trump and Putin and their ilk do never works outside of their little bubble. Their whole game is to tear everyone else in their sphere of influence down to their level, so that they can compete effectively and dominate, but there are always significant threats outside of the sphere. Against which we are now more or less powerless.

Wait, so up there it looks like the actual truth is not “Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC. Just checked, info still missing.” but in fact that the exact information is already in the article.

Glad we had this talk lol. I mean it’s a pretty trivial thing to get upset about even if it were true, I can somewhat believe that some random person might have reverted your edits for bad reasons, but I am wholly unsurprised to learn that there was no grand conspiracy and the information in the article has been corrected now even though you specifically said that it wasn’t.

It strongly looks like you’re making things up lol

It is trivial to check what changes someone did or didn’t make 10 years ago on Wikipedia, if you know which page of Wikipedia it was on. Which page was it on?

What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”?

It’s all part of their various horseshit attempt at making something which is pretty simple an innocuous into something that it isn’t.

Within the last few days, it looks like someone raised the issue on this guy’s page, the arbitration committee is getting in touch with him, and he’s saying he’ll get back to them. Presumably there’s a minor conflict of interest and they’ll look over the article and make sure he didn’t do anything slanty to it and then tell him to stay away from COI-adjacent articles in the future.

There’s absolutely nothing sinister here, and they are stringing together a bunch of misleading stuff (like “mostly PR”) to make a mountain out of a molehill to discredit Wikipedia. I’ve noticed a bunch of people doing this, presumably there is some organized campaign which actually is sinister in the way they’re implying WP is, that is trying to make people think badly of them.

Because frankly you don’t know enough to know any better.

I had more typed, but what’s the point. I feel like I’ve said everything I really wanted to say on it. Like I said, enjoy your point of view and I hope it goes well for you.

“Never delete anything on your computer because it might be needed”?

No. That’s a whole new sentence.

I gave two other options, besides that one option.

Also, even within the one option, if at some point I upgraded my Linux system and I got an empty /var/www directory, it would never in a million years occur to me to say “Well that’s stupid I don’t want that directory” and remove it.

I might think it’s stupid that it’s there when I don’t have apache. But, deleting it because it’s stupid that it’s there… you know what? I feel like I already addressed this with the /tmp and /var/tmp example. I can feel that it’s stupid that there’s two of those instead of one. I might be right. You’re not wrong about it being silly that MS has done this. But reacting to that feeling by deleting things until my system matches how I think they should have set things up is a recipe for broken stuff.

I’ve reiterated this point three times now, which is enough. You seem committed to not absorbing it. Good luck with your computers in the future. I hope your system administration philosophy serves you well.

?

I’m just being serious. If your software has some files and directories, and you start fucking with them, it might react badly. It doesn’t really matter if you feel like the existence or layout of them is unjustified in some way. Just let them be, or else switch to some other software, or else take responsibility for making sure stuff won’t break from you fucking with them. Those are the options. “Delete it on purpose and then whine about how it shouldn’t have been set up that way in the first place, if stuff breaks” isn’t one of the options.

Also, it’s kind of a side note, but it’s also weird to me that this is the hill to die on that Windows is up to something. Yes. It’s been openly spying on you, degrading its own functionality for amusement, and hijacking your computer to do messed up stuff for a long time. Making an empty directory in the root of C: isn’t something you need to get any level of panicked about in addition. There’s other stuff you can worry about.

Yeah. It’s not even a matter of “do you need it.” I don’t need both /var/tmp and /tmp. I only need one. But, if I respond to that by deciding to delete one or the other, some stuff will fuck up. That’s how computers work.

Deleting random stuff from your system that the OS put there, because “it’s empty so surely it is fine”, is generally not a recipe for success.

“It’s kind of getting communist when a feller can’t even put in a hard days’ work, put in 11, 12 hours a day, and then get in your truck and at least drink 1 or 2 beers.”

-People in the 1980s upset that they were trying to make it illegal to drive with a .15 BAC (which was the previous limit).

I know it’s only vaguely related, since they’re not US-funded, but at some point I think it would be hilarious (in a particularly poignant way) if the Lemmy developers’ funding got cut off by the process of the explicitly rabid governments they are fans of finally succeeding at destabilizing the friendly Western countries where they live to the point that NLNet wasn’t funded anymore. As I understand it, NLNet is already facing some headwinds because the friendly liberal elements in EU politics are getting replaced by the same kind of “fuck everyone just give money to rich people and also anyone who disagrees with me dies” elements that Russia likes to give money and social-media-shilling campaigns to support.

Surely Russia and China will jump to the front and fund basic infrastructure work for the good of everyone, if that happened. They could count on it happening, instead of having to get jobs.

Surely.

if you assume the network is badly behaved, fedi breaks down. it makes no sense to me that everything is taken for granted, except privacy.

This is backwards in my opinion.

What you described is exactly how it works. Everything in the network is potentially badly behaved. You need to put on rate limits, digital signatures for activities back to actors, blocks for particular instances, and so on, specifically because whenever you are talking with someone else on the network, they might be badly behaved.

In general, it’s okay in practice to be a little bit loose with it. If you get some spam from a not-yet-blocked instance, or you send some server a message which it has a bug and it doesn’t deliver, then it is okay. But, if you’re sending a message which can compromise someone’s privacy if mishandled, then all of a sudden you have to care on a stricter level. Because it’s not harmless anymore if the server which is receiving the message is broken (or malicious).

So yes, privacy is different. In practice it’s usually okay to just let users know that nothing they’re sending is really private. Email works that way, Lemmy DMs work that way, it’s okay. But if you start telling people their stuff is really private, and you’re still letting it interact with untrusted servers (which is all of them), you have to suddenly care on this whole other level and do all sorts of E2EE and verification stuff, or else you’re lying to your users. In my opinion.

I’m pretty sure they do not. However, ActivityPub specifically says that no particular secrecy behavior is defined for even posts with no recipients at all (it’s in a green highlighted note under 7.1 I think). I would interpret that to mean that no particular secrecy behavior is guaranteed for posts without #public as a recipient, also.

https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page looks like what you want.

There are lots of wikis for specific domains, what are you looking to write a guide for?

It is the difference between aspiration and victory