Heck, it probably can be done with a regex. (Yeah, I know)

There’s no need to kill three forests just to do the exact same work you could have done by opening your dataset in Excel.

“Wide Chile”.

Forgejo gives you a registry built-in.

Also is it just me or does the docker hub logo look like it’s giving us the middle finger?

No I mean, I don’t “trust” a groceries store. I only use them to trade for groceries, and only use cash when doing so.

Just because I use someone doesn’t mean I trust them. Even more: just becaue I trust Alice, that doesn’t mean I trust Bob by transitivity.

Example 1: So you buy at toms groceries, you trust them.

[citation needed]

I use Debian ftw.

A fair point that I admittedly don’t know how to solve. The closest I’ve got to a “functional” idea is to focus on splitting the two (I think? maybe three) things that an “upvote” is interpreted as, and supplementing with also the opposite / counter message:

• “I like what this post is about” (basically a like / heart / kudos)
• “I found this information useful / verified / checked” (a more proper upvote)
• (optionally) “I want this information to be more easily found”

Pretty much everything else can be a comment, as you say, but the purpose and reception of a message should also be as streamlined to communicate as possible.

and non-violent

And that would be good… why?

Oh get off their high horse. I know of no instance that is like Ecosia where your activity gets to, dunno, plant a tree or something. If you say online spaces somehow physically fight fascism, show me how many homeless people is your instance physically sheltering or helping immigrate to a better country, and we’ll talk.

Like, I love this kind of web space as much as the next person; but I don’t fancy myself in the emperor’s clothes.

This is one of the reasons why I’d love to see a more expanded method of reacting to content rather than simply upvoting or dowvoting; something like, say, user-side thread or post tagging, with things like “verified”, “clickbait”, and mood reacts like “happy” vs “sad”, and usefulness reacts like “solved, thanks” vs “closed as duplicate”, etc. We need more and better axes.

(Axises? Axeses? Asses?)

Like, of course; tho any sort of “accounting” should IMO start from the base that the intent of this entire thing is to publicly share public information.

, which is of course faulty logic

…which is why design systems so that when using them we can account for the human element, right? Come on! We have centuries-spanning systems even industries built on that! Engineering, avionics, Yelp reviews…

Not them but yes but it’s not a feature of the system, it’s a failure of the humans.

I don’t get how people get hung on choosing a server when people have been chosing a starter Pokémon since 1998 without any major issues. And you get just about the “same” amount of practical info.

Really, what tiktok does to a generation…

The 2A is there for you to do things, but it’s not only simply about rising up. It’s about instrumentalization. When every citizen can be armed “just in case”, all you need is for that to statistically compound into a Luigi or two getting three lucky marked shots on the tyrant du jour.