Ah, yes, just over five attempts for every human alive. I assume they took the reply addresses at face value and have forwarded 45 billion cease & desist letters to Microsoft’s Redmond office?

Could have been MMANAA 😔

Nothing quite like minimum wage to help you appreciate the affordability of an air sandwich. It costs zero hours of labor (after taxes!) to go hungry – great bargain – plus you can invest all of that saved lunch break time catching up on sleep in the smoking pavilion.

The above is absolutely not based on a terrible and completely wasted early adulthood wrought with minimum wage toil. I’m fine, that hypothetical experience has in no way permanently shaped my worldviews.

Oh, in that case it’s not horrifying at all. Who doesn’t keep 3 years of past salary in their checking account for the occasional rainy day?

For everyday writing I like to use MessagEase. It’s highly ergonomic thanks to the 3x3 grid and deeply customizable. I’ve been happily using it for over a decade now (it continues to receive updates) and for the past 8 years I’ve been able to touch-type on it without looking at my fingers

The documentation is all in-app, so I’ve taken the liberty of screenshotting the relevant pages for illustrative purposes:

Note that I’m specifically including “in an an instance-local post” because I am assuming admins don’t want to provide free cloud image hosting to random internet people for arbitrary non-lemmy use.

Note that I at no point allude to hotlinking from outside of the instance. Unless you want it to be possible to create an image post, delete the post, and then have an orphaned image forever (thereby creating an attack vector), you do need to solve that problem. If you solve that problem without considering crossposts and comment hotlinks within the scope of your own instance, you’re going to cause breakage. If you’re forced to consider these things before triggering the deletion regardless, then you’re not saving much on performance.

What’s the practical difference? In both cases you’re culling images based on whether they’re orphaned or not.

If you’re suggesting that the implementation be based on setting individual timers instead of simply validating the whole database at regular intervals, consider whether or not the complexity of such a system is actually worth the tradeoff.

“Complexity comshmexity”, you might say. “Surely it’s not a big deal!”. Well… what about an image that used to belong to a valid post that later got deleted? Guess you have to take that edge case into account and add a deletion trigger there as well! But what if there were other comments/posts on the same instance hotlinking the same image? Guess you have to scan the whole DB every time before running the deletion trigger to be safe! Wait… wasn’t the whole purpose of setting this up with individual jobs to avoid doing a scripted DB scan?

You’re of course within your rights to remain unconvinced, but I fail to understand the mindset that would lead a reasonable bystander to look at what Ms. Reeves has said thus far and think “there’s a significant chance that this is untrue”. Why? For what purpose? She stands to gain nothing by lying unless you start imagining that a much broader conspiracy is somehow at play.

If you’re willing to entertain the idea of a hitherto unsubstantiated conspiracy from one side, then why not also suspect that LMG will conspire to hire a crooked auditor or otherwise hide unflattering findings? Why take anyone’s word for anything?

The fact she is a woman is different than the majority, however there are other women at LMG

I don’t know how to respond to this without speaking condescendingly. I’m sorry, but you’ll just have to trust me when I say that women can still be subjected to workplace harassment in situations where they aren’t literally the only girl in the building. I’ll leave it at that unless an actual woman wants to step in and expand on this subject further.

not all the men at LMG are sexist so most likely at least one person from one of those camps would object/want to do/say something

That’s just how power works. If you’re in the minority, your needs and concerns get less attention. If you’re in a very small minority, they become practically invisible. Organizations aren’t immune to this. Sexist outcomes can and will readily emerge from systems where none of the individuals directly intend to do a sexism.

As evidence, I’ll point to the statistic itself. A gender gap as steep as this one doesn’t happen by random chance. The only way you get this far skewed is with a feedback loop.

My question is if she had such a bad experience, why hasn’t anyone else said anything, or at least put an anonymous negative review on Glassdoor or something? […] (and the turnover is pretty low for LMG if I’m not mistaken, so that also doesn’t make sense)

Indeed, why is that? Why would she have such an abnormaly bad experience at this particular company? I can’t seem to think of any particular traits that she might have which would have caused her to be treated differently. If sexist comments and sexual harassment are such a problem, then why do people like Gary, James, Ed, Nick, Colton, or Luke apparently seem blind to it? I have no idea what disparity in the distribution of power could possibly account for this phenomenon!

I’m disappointed. Jesus of all people should know how dangerous it is to ride without proper gear. Where’s the helmet? Where’s the armor? And, Christ… are those Sandals?? ATGATT!

Reasonable people will disagree… but no, probably not. This is a feature which websites can choose to use in the same way that websites can choose to use notifications. Even if you dislike the fact that web browsers provide the option, it’s the website itself that’s actively choosing to impose on you.

Now, the counterpoint to this argument is that the feature in question will most likely further strengthen Google’s position as the market leader and lock out new independent browsers. This is certainly true and similar logic has indeed been employed in cases like the Microsoft antitrust case. With that being said, Google still has that extra layer of abstraction sitting between it and the actual mechanism of action (i.e.: independent website owners who want DRM). Think of it like the Uber of anti-trust law.

Be Evil, Do Ads

I’m suggesting a whitelist, that each peer has to put in a substitute list of vlemmy.ml==vlemmy.ml to re-federate.

I don’t see any inherent problem with that suggestion, though it does create something of a sticky situation with things like canonical links. It also kind of goes against what I’ve so far perceived as a “low-maintenance” operations ethos from the project maintainers, so I’m not totally sure if they’d greenlight it. Technically quite doable, though.

~~I’ll cite my source, then: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/commit/1de7a08d973c1079b36e13e087960cc5cd1b345c~~

EDIT: scratch that, I now see that the stated intent is to retain anonymized comments as Reddit does, but that the functionality is not yet implemented in the main code release for reasons that seem triage-related rather than a change in plans.

On the technical topic of renaming a domain of a Lemmy server… I think it is worth experimenting with the code.

This is unfortunately only possible if you still own the original domain. Think about it this way: if you could migrate domains without proving you own the original, then what’s stopping a bad actor from migrating any domain they want? Keep in mind that Federated servers rely on DNS to verify who’s who – they don’t have a backup system for deciding trustworthiness.

Yes, there’s no technical reason Lemmy has to rely on DNS to establish trust (aside from the fact that changing this would require a massive rearchitecting effort), but why shouldn’t it? It’s possible to switch to a different trust system (i.e.: public/private keypairs), but that doesn’t actually change the nature of the problem – people can still lose control of the private key and blow the whole system up (and, arguably, this is a lot more likely to happen than permanently losing a domain).

At minimum, I think it should be an option to try and keep the same login/passwords for users from the old install of Lemmy.

So, login credentials aren’t actually tied to the domain name at all. A user like example@lemmy.ml is simply known as example to the server internally. The server doesn’t particularly care if it lives at lemmy.ml or microsoft.com – if user example shows up and gives the right password, they’re allowed to log in. What I’m trying to say is that – assuming that the user database isn’t destroyed – login info would probably carry over without any special effort needing to be taken at all.

But even that could prove tricky if a particular domain changed underllying ownership more than once - and user@domain became rewritten by an entirely different person. I guess in the real-world people do often get mail for previous residence of a house.

The identity problem you allude to is not exclusive to this scenario. Let’s use lemmy.ml as an example: where did the domain come from? The Mali government. Does this mean that the Mali government owned lemmy.ml before it became associated with the Lemmy project? At the risk of oversimplying: yes, pretty much! Prior to 2019, the government of Mali could have created “fraudulent” Fediverse posts under your username, /u/[email protected].

With that being said, it’s kind of a silly concern. Despite being partially distributed, Lemmy is not a read-only database (i.e.: not a blockchain). There’s nothing stopping the current domain owner from more-or-less completely undoing vandalism from a prior domain owner by simply asking the other federated servers to delete that fraudulent content. Keep in mind that the domain is not the server; the original operator keeps all of the original data even if they lose the ability to host that data under the original domain.

My biggest concern is legality because Lemmy claims to support privacy. I honestly think it’s a bad idea to claim privacy because you run into so many problems. If the user never knows that their lemmy instance changed names and can’t find it again, etc.

This is not a problem unique to Lemmy. If Google forgets to pay for gmail.com, then suddenly a lot of email addresses become untrustworthy. This isn’t a privacy issue because your old emails don’t leave Google’s servers. It is a trust issue, however, since the new owners can now impersonate any gmail.com address and receive any new email that was intended for the original owner.

Not to downplay how catastrophic this scenario would be… but I don’t think there’s any law on the books which would legally obligate Google to operate gmail.com until the end of time. Nothing lasts forever and eventually gmail.com won’t be controlled by Alphabet Inc. anymore – that’s just how time works. Those bothered by this uncertainty can instead choose to host their own mail server (or Lemmy instance) on their own domain – this won’t last forever, either… but at least you’re in control now.

Especially on technical topics, 15+ years of having Reddit keep messages from deleted user accounts offered a lot of great search engine hits. With Lemmy, a person moving to a different instance and deleting their account, so much content is going to get black-hole in favor of 50 instances having copies of a meme post or trivial website link - and solid original content (often in comment discussions) gets removed.

Just FYI: Much like Reddit, comments continue to exist even when the author deletes their account. The user must explicitly delete each individual comment before deleting their account if they want it all taken down. I don’t really get this complaint in the first place, actually… surely both kinds of content would get lost when a user deletes all of their data, right? There’s no button that says “delete all of my stuff, except for the shitposts”.

I’ll believe it when Mastodons fly

tl;dr: annualized inflation figures cooled more quickly than projected, landing at 3.1% this month compared to 4% in June. This is down 6% compared to the peak annualized inflation figure of 9.1% from 12 months ago, though still 1.1% higher than The Fed’s stated 2% target.

The trending communities UI only shows communities local to your own instance and right now seems to strongly prioritize new communities specifically. That leads to weird results on lemmy.ml, since new community registration is closed.