Okay, totally off topic…what is it with this annoying trend of censoring a company/name with an asterisk when it’s a subject of ire? It just bugs me - and not in a way that focuses my anger to Microsoft.

What makes me angry here is, I am 90% sure the browsers could code against this.

If the user clicks a control on a webpage one time, the stack can declare “One user click! You have earned yourself One (1) navigation.” Then, the click activates some JavaScript that moves you to a new webpage. That new webpage has an auto-loader redirect that instead runs a 300ms timeout, and then takes you to some other page. The browser, meanwhile, has seen this, and establishes “We are still only operating off of that One (1) click. So, instead of adding a new page to the user history, we’ll replace that first navigation.”

I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason as to why that’s not possible.

I’m reminded of a joke from Burn Notice where Michael has kept a folder of critically important blackmail files in his mother’s oven for several seasons. He just casually points out she never actually cooks anything herself.

I have gradually wondered if the issue has not been in our obsession with plastic specifically, but our need for sanitation of every object. “We need a material that will preserve its shape in transit and operation; but we then want it to gently break down into nature when we’re done with it.” No matter what materials of what strength we invent, that’s always going to be an oxymoron. There’s a reason people criticize biodegradable materials as often falling apart.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure medicine has made tremendous advances through the preservation of sealed instruments and drugs, especially for those with sensitive immune systems. But the 3000% thorough sanitization we keep of every single object we interact with has had a very gradual impact on our planet. I kind of want to envision just how fatal of a health risk it would carry if so much of our food wasn’t triple-secure-wrapped, and whether that’s comparable to the current impact of widespread plastic.

I’m saddened that Reuse has fallen by the wayside. I brought some cleaned liquor bottles back to my store for deposit, and the clerk admitted to me they’ll just end up in the recycling chain - it’s too much effort to locate transport/handling for the bottles.

Theoretically, there should be a lot of inward transit for cities and civic centers with not much going out. There’s a very efficient mental image of dropping off 80 bottles, and picking up 80 empty bottles to bring back, but it would just take more logistics than people care for to do it that way.

This post is about informing people about the nature of that instance; something many people don’t necessarily intend to interface with when they’re just exploring their favorite niche topic community which simply happens to be there. We don’t want people to unintentionally end up in that crowd without knowing about their principles or lack thereof.

I had a calm, respectful comment about China’s attempts to censor the Tiananmen Square photo removed for no reason, and without my knowledge. The idea that they’re conducting “normal moderation” is laughable.

The complaint is about lemmy.ml. This post is hosted on lemmy.world.

The issue that caused this topic to arise wasn’t of other people having opinions we didn’t like. It wasn’t even a case of arguing in bad faith, eg deflecting truth, or disguising real intentions by making arguments the owner doesn’t believe for some other purpose (those are also bad, but generally don’t get such a response).

The issue was specific moderator/instance-ownership censorship. People’s posts were being removed without warning when they were making respectful, good-faith arguments - that disagreed with the politics of lemmy.ml. Worse, they were attempting to be stealthy about this removal so that no one victimized by this censorship was aware of it.

For reference, I’m gonna be a Biden voter. If someone posted “Biden is a piece of trash old man” then I’d disagree with them, but they’d have every right to put that opinion up.

Most people would be fine with this in the case of a home user duplicating one or two copies for his kids to watch and as backups. But we have seen whenever a rule permits something, someone will work out the MAXIMUM way in which they can abuse it for profit. Give them an inch, and they take a mile.

Ideally, we could have laws that are really finely built to be specific to that first scenario. But I honestly don’t know how you write those.

IANAL, but: It circles back to the right to fair representation.

Say he’s convicted, but at a later court, claims “After my totally involuntary psychotic episode, now verified by multiple behavioral psychologists, my lawyer held my unintentional actions against me and did a demonstrably poor job in the remainder of the case. I deserve the right to a fair trial.”

That COULD be enough to get the case declared a mistrial and re-scheduled.

I can even agree that for a lot of cartoony media, depicting people as animals can give it a really cool/cute style. A lot of people have fond memories of reading the Redwall books, which took that to a logical and mature extension. But, having close association to all of the sexual stuff is where it gets bizarre and unlikable.

I’ll even go out on a limb; I really enjoyed Lauren Faust’s My Little Pony series. I thought there was some fun, inventive writing humor, good VA, and smooth animation; for a time. But there’s undeniably a ton of people that made obsession with that series really weird.

That remark, while truthful a long time ago, didn’t really apply during the later periods of IE, or the early periods of Edge before it became a webkit clone. When it needed to win back users, there was a lot of focus on standardization, meaning that when I worked on sites, I tested them through MDN Docs, and in Firefox and IE first, made sure my solutions were not using any -webkit- nonsense, and then they would be fine on other browsers. Anytime I did find IE bugs late in its life, it was usually because some other browser coder was not correctly following standards.

The point of the easiness of unsubscription isn’t to make it possible for total idiots. It is to make it frictionless.

Take law - since this technically is on the same subject. So, so much of the legal profession now (unfortunately) involves putting up so many rudimentary roadblocks that people are compelled to settle and agree. Firms suing small companies with single attorneys will send massive archives of paper during discovery. They’ll file an irrelevant “first amendment” claim to defend their actions, all to make sure people’s time is occupied. Even if the opposing council is qualified to respond to and dismiss every single petulant thing, it will take up their precious time, stressing them and reducing how long they have to form an argument.

Law practice has actually similarly introduced legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits and paperwork overload. On the idea of newsletters, it’s especially important for it to be easy because many people have been erroneously signed up for MASSES of them. It should be; Click, Click, gone.

Not written in a direct, full, and literal sense, only because it’s difficult to legally define a login, but:

“The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her​ consent at any time […] It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.”​

src

Articles that interpret this directive also say that one expectation of this wording is that users should not need to log in. Arguably, registering by scribbling a random password is “easy”. Remembering that password later is “hard”.

This is such a tragedy. DisplayName field missing from registry was one of my favorite games growing up.

Consoles tend to have higher power draw than a lot of simple devices. Depends on how much you care about environmental power savings or power bills.

I wonder if you could contest this under the claim that you disagree with the valuation of your assets.

Say your child made a finger painting that you hung on the fridge. Some kind of crazed, but highly respected/influential, art appraiser sees it on a visit and claims it’s worth $10,000,000. So you can’t have any communal benefits unless you sell it (but you don’t want to, because it’s your kid’s - not to mention actually selling it can be hard). Would there be no avenue to claim that the appraiser is an idiot, and it’s barely worth the paper it’s on?

I don’t think it necessarily needs active enforcement. It can be as simple as:

Richy Rich: “So I claimed unemployment during my taxes, and no one stopped me! Bwa ha ha!”
Moralistic Auditor: “Wait…you did?? That’s illegal! Screw it, I always hated you, I’m going to report you to the IRS!”
IRS: “We’ve discovered you incorrectly claimed unemployment, thanks to an anonymous tip and brief investigation. Your punitive taxes have been quintupled.”

You wouldn’t always catch everyone; that’s fine, as long as the cost of abusers is not outweighed by the savings of not verifying everyone.

That probably lead to this exchange.

Stack Overflow is useful, but…it needs more than a little parsing for useful answers.