Huh? It wasn’t bait, it was a simple statement about how they already have plenty of good options for donating. I brought up cryptocurrency because you mentioned it out of nowhere.

They link to their accepted donation methods in the article: https://ziglang.org/zsf/

No need for cryptocurrency when they accept real money.

No, the article is just not very precise with its words. It was causing the program to panic.

GlitchTip makes monitoring software easy. Track errors, monitor performance, and check site uptime all in one place. Our app is compatible with Sentry client SDKs, but easier to run.

For those that have no idea what GlitchTip is, it’s a service tracing service like Sentry.

This basically what I think too. I will add that I make sure other people (current and future) can enjoy it as much as possible too, so that means I will avoid anything needlessly destructive even if it is enjoyable

If the tankies had reputable sources they wouldn’t be so fringe and disliked lol

Any mention of what’s happening to the online functionality? It’s supposed to have multiplayer

Yeah, it’s a Voyager (the app) thing. It’s the default now when sharing a link. I’m not sure why, it seems completely useless, more expensive for the devs, and a privacy problem for everyone else (redirect links are a form of tracking).

Friendly reminder for everyone using Voyager to turn it off. I already did.

Regulations limit the total battery energy you can carry on board, which would be measured in Wh. Usually the limit is 100Wh though some countries/airlines have different regulations for total vs individual capacities (e.g. max 200Wh total but each device cannot be over 100Wh).

For regular Lithium-Ion cells which are usually 3.6 to 3.7V, 100Wh is around 27 000 mAh. Always check the battery cell voltage though, since it’s pretty easy to claim any mAh the company wants since it’s not really a measurement of anything tangible.

Yes, as I said the article is correct based on the definition it is using, but that’s not what people associate with being vegan. The highlighted part “as far as is possible and practicable” lends itself to a much more subjective judgment on veganism which could allow someone to be vegetarian (as in, consume animal products but not flesh) while fitting the definition of vegan if they had enough mitigating factors (e.g. lots of dietary restrictions preventing them from consuming most vegan alternatives). You don’t see someone drinking (cow) milk and think “that person is vegan”.

The article actually covers that immediately below the definition they give. Per the article, “trying to buy less animal products” is vegan as long as they are actually buying only the animal products they can’t get alternatives for (see: living in remote area).

It’s a blog, it’s all casual. I was trying to point out that the definition they use, regardless of where it’s from, is not the definition that most people use. Basically gatekeeping, but happening with vegans and non-vegans, if you assume the provided definition is the right one. I was directly criticising the thesis. I suspect any search engine will give you at least a couple other definitions of “vegan” without the pragmatic allowance (I checked quickly with Ecosia, first result is Wikipedia… fourth? result is vegansociety).

I suspect the reason it’s downvoted is mostly because veganism has a bad reputation (I’d like to think it’s getting better). I won’t pretend to know anything about that, at best I’m plant-based but I’m not going to call myself vegan because my motivation for that is not primarily for animal rights. People don’t like having their ways challenged; not much we can do about that without larger societal changes.

The widely-understood definition of veganism is “not consuming animal products”, not the definition in that blog. The blog is correct but it’s sort of missing that nuance; many people (vegans and non-vegans) don’t think that trying to buy less animal products is the same as being fully vegan. At best, I’d imagine people would consider that “going vegan”.

I don’t think that’s necessarily incompatible with what I suggested. They could just leave the backup servers offline until they’re actually needed which shouldn’t cost them anything (or at least not much; some cloud providers charge for a VM’s storage usage regardless).

Assuming that Signal’s servers were designed by competent engineers, the engineering cost to make a change like this shouldn’t be that bad. Though judging by Whittaker’s comments, that may be a bad assumption.

It is true that there really isn’t another cloud provider that they could choose. All of the other cloud providers (major and minor players) are prone to the same sort of systemic failure. But it isn’t true that they didn’t have another choice.

The solution to service failure is redundancy. Making the redundancy as different as possible makes it even more resilient. In this case, that would be having redundant servers on other cloud providers which can be used in the event that the main one fails. Even better if they can use all of them simultaneously to share the load and let failover happen more gracefully.

I guess now is better than later, but plenty of people already knew that litigious and rich companies are never good.

The author’s take is a bit baffling to me. Trying to apply the US constitutional amendments against a foreign government institution to protect a US company is dumb. Those amendments strictly apply to the US government. As long as the company provides services in the UK, they are subject to UK laws on those services. If I start shipping firearms from the US to the UK it’d be perfectly reasonable for the UK to stop those packages at the border and destroy them. Network packets don’t just magically transcend borders.

The reasonable consequence of noncompliance is to block the service. Yes, that’s essentially paving the way for a national internet filter like China’s Great Firewall, but that’s why we have to fight the entire law not just the enforcement of it.

The Online Safety Act is horrible and a nightmare for so many reasons, but arguing it’s unenforceable on the grounds of being in a different country is just blatantly wrong.

They do use handheld and never define it, but I can hold my laptop with my hand so I’m not sure that’s necessarily a good way of disqualifying laptops. That also seems to strictly apply to the operating system (“runs an operating system designed […] for software applications on handheld electronic devices”), which might be a fun legal quagmire as well since Linux is designed for all sorts of platforms. If I install Linux on my (formerly) Windows laptop does it suddenly become a mobile device?

It does bring up another interesting niche of computers: handheld PCs, especially handheld gaming PCs. Does this law apply to Steam Decks?

This whole thing screams “written by tech illiterates” since it seems to ignore regular computers and only focus on phones when it’s all just variations of the same thing – form factor and the software running on top isn’t very relevant to whatever goal I presume they’re trying to achieve. If they really want to collect everyone’s ID, age, and other privacy-violating information they’d be better off doing it everywhere. But maybe I shouldn’t give out advice for speed running fascism…

That was my interpretation too, except not restricted to “modern” websites. It sounds more like any website, modern or not, JS or not.

The part that is funny in that situation is that probably means web browsers are considered “app stores”. From a technical standpoint that’s actually pretty accurate (though they also handle running the “app”, unlike a regular app store), but has the fun consequence of making web browsers also “app store stores”. Most browsers can be used without an account though, so I look forward to the dumb antics companies with large legal departments come up with for this one.

Do you still hangout with your childhood friends? Would you want to marry them years later? Socioeconomic status changes how people treat you, including people you already have existing relationships with. It can also affect how you treat other people if you’re not a very good person. And unfortunately a lot of not-very-good people are rich and/or famous because it requires the willingness to exploit others for personal gain.

Imagine you’re a famous person. Many people who are less famous than you now want to be you. Many other people now dislike you just because you’re famous (or maybe because some bad thing you did got covered in the media which any regular person would get away with). How do you find people who aren’t in one of those two categories to not only befriend, but date? The easiest way is to find someone in similar circumstances as you: a similar level of famous and/or rich. Sure, there are other ways, but they’re harder.

I’ve got no clue about legal documents, especially how they work in Texas, but this seems weirdly broad and with a pretty glaring loophole.

The weirdly broad part:

(2) “App store” means a publicly available Internet website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes software applications from the owner or developer of a software application to the user of a mobile device.

This sounds like any website suddenly becomes an app store as soon as it starts distributing software for a mobile device. So (ignoring my following point), if I suddenly post my new APK on my personal site suddenly it’s an app store!? Also aren’t websites software applications? That’ll be a fun one to fight out with browsers…

(4) “Mobile device” means a portable, wireless electronic device, including a tablet or smartphone, capable of transmitting, receiving, processing, and storing information wirelessly that runs an operating system designed to manage hardware resources and perform common services for software applications on handheld electronic devices.

This sounds like it includes laptops but not desktop computers.

The glaring loophole:

(a) When an individual in this state creates an account with an app store, the owner of the app store shall use a commercially reasonable method of verification to verify the individual’s age category under Subsection (b).

So if your app store does not require an account, you do not need to verify anyone’s age!? I’m all for it but that doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of the law. F-droid and my (example) personal-site-turned-app-store rejoice!

More features that are preparing for full federation support! Exciting!