I think the rat king would be a little bit insulted that you even had to ask.

Yeah. There’s literally nothing you can put on a prompt that will truly work. It’s still a good idea to prompt cause it will reduce how many people approve the prompt, but there is a significant number of people who don’t read prompts at all and just insta-confirm.

At best, I think you could design it so there’s no way for an app to request certain permissions themselves. They’d have to be opted in from the system settings and apps could only tell you how to do it. But that’s a usability nightmare that is quite frustrating for legitimate usages. There’s already some super sensitive permissions that do this. I think the ability to install apps, ability to display over other apps, and password managers for android.

Assuming we’re talking about outdoors, that’s not the case for me in my area. There’s only so much layers can do. You have to limit exposure. Plus all those layers can be a chore. By comparison, while summer heat can be uncomfortable, it’s rarely deadly and far easier to stay safe.

Heck, I’d say even give money to those big corps so long as they are being reasonable with the price and availability. Reasonable varies by person, of course. But for me, I’ll pay for any $70-90 game (the normal price for new games now in Canada), but stuff like Sims DLC or how the original Mass Effect only let you get DLC through some dumb BioWare credits are cases where I’d pirate no regrets even with my current income.

After all, there won’t be AAA games if people don’t pay for them. I have (mostly) no qualms with big publishers pocketing a significant profit on those games if they get made well. Bigger problem I have is with games that get rushed to the point of impacting quality, but that’s something I see more for changing how you approach that individual title. Stuff like mistreating staff (crunch time) is a bit iffier. I still lean towards giving them my money, since nobody enters the game dev business without knowing it’ll involve crunch and I do want the devs to be rewarded for their hard work with a commercial success (cause that’s unfortunately just how success is measured in our capitalist society).

The "somehow" is because IRC is extremely bare bones. It doesn't stand up to modern expectations of what chat software does. Plus accounts aren't all a bad thing. Anti-spam is vital for the internet today, as is rigid ways of preventing impersonation. IRC is a relic of a simpler era.

When you have a 3D printer, you have a compulsion to come up with uses for it, even if they’re useless. 3D printers are great, but there’s this urge to find more ways to use it, rather than be driven by what you want/need.

You definitely still want locks because most people have no idea how to pick a lock and a lot of crime is crimes of opportunity. But I don’t think there’s that much of a difference in most locks. A slightly better lock might dissuade a thief who learned how to pick cheap masterlocks, but someone who truly wants to get in doesn’t even need to pick a lock. I’d hazard a guess that break-ins happen far more often by breaking the window than picking locks.

I don’t personally get the appeal of many gaming YouTubers. I’m not personally very into watching other people play videos (not review, but just play). I can kinda understand some people wanting to watch that, but it always surprises me just how many people watch it and for how long.

It also seems all too common that they have very questionable views and their fans will defend them to the death. I don’t get that either. There’s some YouTuber creators I really enjoy, but if they said horrible things, I sure as hell aren’t going to defend them at all, let alone to the degree that some gaming YouTubers get ardently defended.

It adds value by helping convince clueless investors to give you money. I’m entirely serious. There’s a significant number of investors that think blockchain technology is a good thing. Doesn’t matter that it’s a terrible solution to practically every problem. The goal isn’t to be a good solution. The goal is to make money. They only need to convince a few clueless people to give them that.

Yeah. A troll might post something like a ton of oversized images of pig buttholes. Who the fuck even has access to CSAM to post? That’s something you only have on hand if you’re a predator already. Nor is it something you can shrug off like “lol I was only trolling”. It’s a crime that will send you to jail for years. It’s a major crime that gets entire police units dedicated to it. It’s a huuuuge deal and I cannot even fathom what kind of person would risk years in prison to sabotage an internet forum.

K3s? What did you do to the other 5 letters??

Personally, I sometimes like when a game feels like just a new storyline (and map) for the same game. Sometimes I just want more of a good thing and don’t want to have to learn new mechanics or risk the game making things worse.

And since dev time is limited, I think in theory, this could mean more time could be spent on making the story missions perfect. But in practice, I don’t think that usually happens. Publishers would rather cheap out.

While there’s parts about the GPL that I do like, I think it’s a generally bad license. Above all, because it limits even FOSS projects from using your code, because it would basically force them to also use the GPL. A massive amount of FOSS projects are not GPL compatible.

I think it generally often just discourages the usage of your code. You have to be something utterly outstanding for most companies to consider even touching GPL code. At least with a more permissive license, some corporations will use your code and even if they don’t all contribute, some will. e.g., my company uses a ton of FOSS code. We can only import code with certain licenses, obviously not GPL code. Me and my coworkers have personally made upstream contributions to improve these projects when we discover bugs or limitations. We do certainly also have some projects where we make internal only modifications, but most of those are changes that don’t make sense to commit to the upstream (like adding compatibility with internal systems or adapting to our build system). Point being that the projects with permissive licenses will at least get some commercial contributions whereas most GPL software simply won’t get anything (the likes of Linux is a rare case – most GPL projects aren’t worth it for companies).

As an aside, have you seen the LGPL? Depending on what you’re developing, it can sometimes make more sense. Its use case is for libraries. It basically makes it so that if you change the library, you must open source the changes (like the GPL), but if you merely link the library, you don’t need to do so. That can make it a bit more compatible with other people’s projects while still having GPL-like tendencies.

Other FOSS projects can’t use it, either. The only other “normal people” would be, like, tiny private projects and bad actors. Maybe clueless students, but my university project classes required us to appropriately follow licenses when using other people’s code, or we’d get marked down.

The ability for FOSS projects to use your code is the best part about the FOSS movement. They can generally all copy from each other to improve efficiency, especially since many FOSS licenses are compatible with each other.

If you want to stop corporations from using your project, use a license that does that. Most typically, the GPL will do that (while still allowing some FOSS projects to use the code). It doesn’t prohibit commercial usage, but for the vast majority of projects, the license is basically a poison pill and thus no closed source project will generally use GPL licensed code. But I personally strongly recommend against the GPL, as it goes too far. Most FOSS projects can’t use GPL code themselves. It’s a rather extreme license.

If you don’t care, just use something like the MIT, Apache, or BSD three clause licenses, which are all super simple licenses that have broad compatibility. Doesn’t really matter which you use. I kinda like the BSD three clause because I like the “no using us to promote yourself” clause.

One thing I never understood about that nonsense quote is why it would be a bad thing even if it were true. Like, who the heck wants people to be “hard” or have hard times? What’s so awful about people having easy times and getting to relax and enjoy life?

It’s also usually used by “back in my day” bigots who are usually using it to complain about people they don’t like and quite frequently LGBT people, because they think that their generation pushing people into the closet was somehow a good thing (or that it meant LGBT people didn’t exist).

It’s weird that it’s still used unironically today (and in fact feels like it’s made a relatively recent revival). Like, you’d think they’d at least switch to a phrase that makes sense.

I don’t think that’s the original quote, but rather came later to try and improve the clearly flawed quote. Searching, I found https://grammarist.com/phrase/the-customer-is-always-right/, which says the original quote is the rather uninspiring “Rule number one: the customer is always right. Rule number two: If the customer is wrong, please refer to rule number one”.

That said, I do agree with you completely. I think the quote is just so obviously flawed, as customers abuse the heck out of it. Treating it as applying to aggregates makes way more sense. e.g., if customers want a pink doodad and you only sell doodads in black… well, then you’re wrong and should start selling them in pink.

As a corollary, I also like the quote that has been often attributed to Ford (but checking, it seems unproven if he actually said it), “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” I like that quote because customers often frankly don’t actually know what they want. I’ve had countless times myself where I didn’t know I wanted a product until after I learned about it. And myself, I’m a software dev. This quote constantly applies to my field. The idea of users not knowing what they want is an extremely popular meme in the field (example). Users often need expert guidance to identify what they actually want and what a practical solution might look like.

This is as hilarious as people who say the same thing about Rage Against The Machine.

K8s is amazing for big, complicated services. For small things, it quite honestly can be overcomplicated. If you’re running something massive, like, say, Spotify, then k8s will make things simpler (because the alternative for running such a massive and complicated service is… gross lol). That’s not to say that k8s can’t be used for something like Lemmy, just that it might not be worth the complexity.

For the fediverse, I think a lot of the development is written for small, mostly monolithic single servers. K8s is meant for when you have an entire cluster running some service. You wouldn’t typically run a single server with k8s, but rather you’d have many “nodes” and you’d run many instances of your binary (“pods”) across those nodes for the redundancy.

I’m not very familiar with the backends of fediverse servers nor Docker Compose, but I’m under the impression that’s for single servers and I’ve seen many Lemmy instances talk about their hosting as if they only have one physical server. That’s probably fine for a FOSS social media site that is run by hobbyists, but major commercial software would never want to have a single server. Heck, they wouldn’t even want to run just servers in one location. The big cloud providers all offer ways to run k8s clusters that use nodes spread across multiple data centers, usually ones with isolated failure zones, all to maximize uptime. But that’s also expensive. For a big business, downtime means millions of dollars lost, so it’s a no brainer. For Lemmy? As annoying as downtime is, users will live.

Yeah, that’s an interesting thing with Apple’s delay in fully switching to USB C. Now they have to and it’s gonna hurt their recent (and today) customers. They should have switched ages ago. The writing was on the wall for a few years at least.

It was especially weird cause they even did use USB C for some things. I have a MacBook for work and it uses USB C. Why the heck didn’t they use it for everything??