F3nd0

Democracy ≠ US.

37% participating in demonstrations implies that for your statement to hold true, around 80% of all the remaining people who did not participate in a demonstration would’ve had to hate the protests. I find it somewhat implausible that less than 20% of the people who didn’t go to a demonstration had either positive or somewhat neutral feelings on the matter. Surely the population of Hong Kong is not this neatly divided between two extremes?

Thank you. However, assuming you mean ‘an affirmative choice is made for you’ when you say ’you are opted in’, that use really takes the ‘opt’ out of the ’opt-in’. You can opt in, but you can’t have someone else ‘opt you in’ for you; that seems to go against the very core meaning of ‘opt-in’ (i.e. having to explicitly choose something yourself).

In other words, you can explicitly choose something by yourself, but if other people (in this case companies, service providers) choose something for you, it’s no longer your explicit decision made by yourself. Hence why I believe we can’t consider that ‘opting in’.

My use seems to be perfectly in line with the given dictionary definition, though? Did you perhaps mean to address a different comment?

Since the whole idea of ‘opt in’ is choosing to do something, the only reasonable interpretation of ‘opt in by default’ is that the default state requires you to make the choice yourself. However I try to bend my brain, sing the term ‘opt in’ for the exact opposite makes no sense whatsoever.

Note that I’m not using English grammar as my argument; human language (and English especially) has plenty of exceptions and expressions which make little sense, and if people were to adopt this phrasing en masse, it would naturally become a part of the language, whether it makes sense or not. My argument is that adopting this phrasing is a terrible, user-hostile decision and in my honest opinion we really, really, really ought to avoid it.

Oh, nice! It looks like Converse.js has added it just two months ago, but I haven’t been able to find anything for Dino (only complaints about as old as the latest release, about the newest OMEMO not being supported). Was it shipped very silently, or are they perhaps planning to add it in an upcoming release?

What exactly (supposedly) drives someone to destroy public facilities?

Do you plan on contributing your improvements upstream, or is that not feasible for some reason?

Unless you want to encrypt said messages. But I guess insecure communication beats no communication at all. (I also never had much luck with voice and video calls using XMPP.)

And of course most XMPP clients which support OMEMO only support an old version of it, which is incompatible with the new OMEMO version, currently only supported by KDE’s own client—Kaidan. That also happens to be the only desktop client I feel like I’d actually enjoy using (if only I could use it to talk with people not using Kaidan).

Well, you’re getting more information about the author’s subjective opinion (which they may have deemed unnecessary to include in the main, non-parenthesised text).

I should think that’s a pretty niche memory among people who browse the internet nowadays, but then I only have anecdotal evidence, so I could be underestimating it. Even so, I think conflating a general type with a format specification is not a good idea overall.

There might be other reasons, but chrismorgan linked a nice write-up in a sibling comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49136685

I have trouble seeing how that helps anyone. It’s not like ‘RSS’ is a widespread term the way ‘Word’ or even ‘Mastodon’ are (and even there I’d argue it’s worthwhile to use technically more correct terms). Why not just use ‘news feed’ as the general term? If you don’t care about the protocol in the first place, that’s far more descriptive and correct, no?

Thank you; that was a fun read! I had read that Atom was generally regarded as the technically superior format, but your article (and the links you helpfully provided therein) made it much more apparent why that is the case. :-)

It may not be in the Emoji character block formally, but casually speaking it’s not wrong to call it an emoji, since emoji is basically just a picture character, and this is no less a picture character than what’s formally codified as ‘Emoji’ in the Unicode standard.

Oddly enough, they do show July 25 on mouseover. The post itself shows as July 24 from two hours ago, and vunderba’s (top) comment shows as July 24 from 1 hour ago. I wonder if an old post got promoted or two posts merged and HN automatically updates comment dates in that case? Or maybe it’s a bug?

I kind of assumed the artist’s impression was working with perspective? The images shown in the sidebar seem to picture them at different relative sizes.

The flags have also all (except for Finland, which appears slightly wider?) been squeezed into a uniform 3:2 aspect ratio; some of them (e.g. Belgium, Switzerland, United Kingdom) properly ought to have different proportions. I understand they can look more aesthetically pleasing when they’re all the same size, but it’s another little detail to notice. :-)

Yet somehow French still manages to be altogether more coherent than English… or at least that’s the impression I’ve had so far.

Also some older but still kicking alternatives:

* https://darcs.net/

* https://mercurial-scm.org/

Even assuming it’s right, I don’t like this article. Not because of the claims it makes, but rather because of the implications it makes—or doesn’t care to avoid.

Organic farming is essentially the idea of farming more ‘in line with nature’, and is concretely defined and regulated by different laws in different places. If these regulations aren’t yielding the expected results, it may be a good idea to drop or improve them. What I find dangerous, though, is the easily acquirable belief that the idea of organic farming is deceptive and worthless.

Certain practices present in conventional farming are known to be problematic and it’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned and seek to avoid them. Organic farming can miss the goal, but my understanding is that it’s aiming in the right direction. Therefore, I think a more responsible conclusion to draw would be ‘today’s organic farming isn’t what it should be’, not just the plain ‘organic foods are not superior’. In this form, I fear the message does far more harm than good.

The article does contain sections on climate and ecology, even if the focus is largely on pesticides.

Is it because the new flag is better, or is it really because some sort of a movement has formed around it? In other words, would the new flag have been this popular if it had already been the official flag, or does it owe its success to its role as the sleek, new, modern thing trying to displace the old and outdated design? I feel like this could be an important factor.

If my understanding is correct, enter by default starts a new paragraph (<p>…</p> in HTML). Holding shift makes it add a line break (<br> in HTML).

I think maybe Thunderbird has a plain text mode where this doesn’t happen, but it’s been a while since I last used it, so I could be completely wrong.

It does. Run `winecfg` and see ‘Folders’ under the ‘Desktop Integration’ tab. Wine used to link these to directories in your home directory by default; not sure if that’s still the case, but you can definitely change it.

> The question remains. Where do you draw the line? What are the rules?

These questions absolutely remain, but their scope is not nearly as wide as some people here make it out to be. Of course, narrowing it down further might be nice.

People taking ‘usually right’ as ‘100% true fact’ sounds like a pretty big issue to me. Of course, it’s the people who must learn to know and mind the distinction, first and foremost.

> There's absolutely nothing wrong with using AI and it's something we should be celebrating.

In many cases, there are clear disadvantages to using AI, be it the effect on human psyche, the considerable resource consumption, the style of the output, or the fact that the resulting work was not authored by a person, which is a very subjective preference, but one that many people have nevertheless.

I agree that AI is a great technological achievement, but it’s not as if great technological achievements don’t come with any downsides. Celebrating them is reasonable, but also situational.

None of these amount to AI making something. Before AI, it’s been humans who put the words on the paper, who put the strokes on the canvas, who put the notes on the sheet. Spell-checking and auto-completion have existed before AI and do not fundamentally change the process.

Since this project singles out AI (likely generative AI using machine learning), it seems evident to me that it rules out any involvement which does fundamentally change the process, i.e. what people otherwise do when creating.

(Yes, one could argue that e.g. word processing or printing have also fundamentally changed the process, and that is absolutely true, but each of those has changed the process differently than machine learning has, and clearly this website considers the changes made by AI undesirable in some ways, not the changes made by word processing or printing.)