Just don't use Ubuntu. They do too much invisible fuckery with the system that hinders use on a server.
Would that warning also apply to Mint, since it’s based on Ubuntu, as well as other Ubuntu-based distros?
As it is, you only see new comments if you scroll past the post again (and your client has refreshed it) or if you open it directly. If your client hasn’t updated the comment count or if you refresh your feed and the post falls off, you’ll never see it anyway.
A “Watch” feature would solve this better. If you watch a post, you get aggregated notifications for edits and comments on the post. If you watch a comment, you get aggregated notifications for replies to it or any of its children.
By aggregated notifications, I mean that you’d get one notification that said “The post you watched has been edited; 5 new comments” rather than a notification for each new comment.
Then, in addition to exposing a “Watch” action on posts and comments, clients could also enable users to automatically hide posts that are watched, either by marking them as hidden or by hiding watched posts without updates.
If the latter approach were taken, notifications might not even be necessary - the post could just get added back into the user’s feed when changes were made. It would result in a similar experience to forums, where new activity in a topic would bump it to the front, but it would only impact the people who were watching it.
You can kinda get that behavior by sorting your feed by Active, but this could be used with other sorting methods.
The rules text says it creates an area of darkness, and with your interpretation, it doesn’t, which means your interpretation is wrong. Yes, the ability could be written more clearly, but the logic for a reasonable way for it to function follows pretty cleanly. Your interpretation is not RAW or RAI.
There’s a reply on RPG StackExchange that covers a similar line of logic to what I wrote above.
Remember that Fifth Edition D&D is intentionally not written with the same exacting precision as games like M:tG. The game doesn’t have an explicit definition of magical darkness, but it’s pretty clear that the intent is for magical to trump mundane (when it comes to sources of light and darkness). Even the Specific Beats General section says that most of the exceptions to general rules are due to magic.
If you have normal darkness everywhere, there isn’t a reason to use it, but you don’t always have darkness everywhere. In fact, you generally don’t.
Not all monsters with darkvision have access to light sources. Even if they do, they may need an action to use it or may be out of range. A torch or the light cantrip only has a 40’ range. If you collaborate on positioning with the caster, you can basically set yourself up to have advantage every turn thanks to the darkness, since as a ranged attacker you don’t have to stay within 40’ of your enemies.
Also, Gloom Stalkers can’t see through Darkness like Warlocks can, so this effect is useful to them in a way that the Darkness spell isn’t.
That all said, Tricksy wouldn’t do anything if it didn’t block nonmagical illumination, so it’s reasonable to run it as though it does. Sure, it still wouldn’t block even a cantrip, but it would block torches, lanterns, the sun, etc..
And running it as though it doesn’t block nonmagical darkness results in nonsensical behavior. You’re in a torchlit chamber and use the ability - now there’s a cube of darkness, blocking the light of all four nonmagical torches. If you move one of those torches away and back, why would it suddenly pierce the magical darkness? If it wouldn’t, why would a new nonmagical light source?
Maybe they just wanted to improve it for Gloom Stalker Rangers?
If anyone’s operating in bad faith, it’s you. Are you drunk? You’re being an intentionally obtuse pedant and a liar (by your own definition). Try replying once you’ve sobered up, clown. Once you reread and realize how much of a dick you were, I’m sure you’ll apologize - unless I’m right about you being too much of a coward to admit when you’re wrong about something.
You could try reading the rest of my comment first.
Before I reply to your comment, I’d like to share this link. It didn’t change any of my existing understanding because Linus’s comment already made it clear that this was out of their hands, but maybe it’ll help clarify something for you.
I realize now that this comment on that post was made before this one (“What's free about delisting maintainers based on their country of residence?”) by the same person. It’s disingenuous for someone to act like this is about “country of residence” when they already engaged with a post clarifying that it’s because of sanctions against specific companies.
that you unironically think asset means property
I unironically think that because it does mean that:
- assets plural
a. the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies
b. the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts
a. an item of value owned
b. assets plural the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned
When I do a search for “state asset,” the results I get are all related to property, resources, etc., things that belong to and can be exploited by the state - for example https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/state-asset-management-initiatives-documents
Searching for “asset” specifically I see a tertiary definition reading “A spy working in his or her own country and controlled by the enemy” as well as the wikipedia definition, but that still means “spy,” not “paid lobbyist.”
just that incredibly obtuse
I’d apologize for not being well versed enough in counter-intelligence lingo to properly interpret the comment, but even with a proper interpretation, the comment I replied to was still incoherent, so I’m not really sure what you expect here.
It feels weird to say that it was incredibly obtuse of me to not spend more time trying to figure out what someone meant when they were, as far as I can tell just mad that Linus and other Linux maintainers didn’t ignore what their attorneys advised, regardless of what impact that might have had on them personally, and spouting a bunch of nonsense as a result.
Maybe I’m wrong, though. If so, would you care to explain how this was a violation of the GPL and/or how all of the 4 freedoms I listed were violated?
Feel free to argue it in court
Sadly, there are plenty of instances of drivers who killed pedestrians doing just that and succeeding. Heck, in two cases the pedestrian was on the sidewalk or inside a building.
I think it happens even more when it comes to cyclists being killed by drivers
Are you thinking of something like Stack Overflow’s reputation system? See https://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation for a basic overview. See https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges for some examples of privileges unlocked by hitting a particular reputation level.
That system is better optimized for reputation than the threaded discussions that we participate in here, but it has its own problems. However, we could at minimum learn from the things that it does right:
If you wanted to have upvoted and downvoted discourse, you could also allow people to comment on a given piece of discourse without their comment itself being part of the discourse. For example, someone might just want to say “I’m lost, can someone explain this to me?” “Nice hat,” “Where did you get that?” or something entirely off topic that they thought about in response to a topic.
You could also limit the total amount of reputation a person can bestow upon another person, and maybe increase that limit as their reputation increases. Alternatively or additionally, you could enable high rep users to grant more reputation with their upvotes (either every time or occasionally) or to transfer a portion of their rep to a user who made a comment they really liked. It makes sense that Joe Schmo endorsing me doesn’t mean much, but King Joe’s endorsement is a much bigger deal.
Reputation also makes sense to be topic specific. I could be an expert on software development but be completely misinformed about hedgehogs, but think that I’m an expert. If I have a high reputation from software development discussions, it would be misleading when I start telling someone about hedgehogs diets.
Yet another thing to consider, especially if you’re federating, is server-specific reputations with overlapping topics. Assuming you allow users to say “Don’t show this / any of my content to <other server> at all,” (e.g., if you know something is against the rules over there or is likely to be downvoted, but in your community it’s generally upvoted) there isn’t much reason to not allow a discussion to appear in two or more servers. Then users could accrue reputation on that topic from users of both servers. The staff, and later, high reputation users of one server could handle moderation of topics differently than the moderators of another, by design. This could solve disagreements about moderation style, voting etiquette, etc., by giving users alternatives to choose from.
Right? It’s weird how so many people upset about the situation in this thread are incapable of explaining why it’s a problem without lying.
Like, I get that it sucks to be removed as a maintainer because of something outside your control. But being, or continuing to be, a maintainer of a project isn’t a right that’s integral to that project being free.
I'd honestly even consider it a good idea for Russia to get the FSF to fight this considering it's a blatant violation of the GPL.
How is telling someone that you won’t accept their contributions anymore a violation of the GPL?
Literally none of those freedoms were impacted. Everyone is still free to use the program as they wish, fork it, make changes, etc.. Linux doesn’t have a new license that says “anyone but Russians” can use it.
he then followed up by gloating about Russian maintainers
How did he gloat? He explained the change. If your complaint is that he was abrasive, I feel like you’re not familiar with Linus.
Ok, lots of Russian trolls out and about.
It's entirely clear why the change was done, it's not getting
reverted, and using multiple random anonymous accounts to try to
"grass root" it by Russian troll factories isn't going to change
anything.
And FYI for the actual innocent bystanders who aren't troll farm
accounts - the "various compliance requirements" are not just a US
thing.
If you haven't heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read
the news some day. And by "news", I don't mean Russian
state-sponsored spam.
As to sending me a revert patch - please use whatever mush you call
brains. I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be *supporting* Russian
aggression? Apparently it's not just lack of real news, it's lack of
history knowledge too.
Sounds a lot more like he’s frustrated than delighted to me.
Calling your former volunteer contributors bots
He didn’t call the contributors bots.
He called the people submitting reverts and complaining about those maintainers, who weren’t contributors themselves, “troll farm accounts.”
and state assets because of their home country
When did he call anyone a state asset? To be clear, being a troll or a paid actor doesn’t make you someone’s property.
He also explained that this was a legal matter:
> Again -- are you under any sort of NDA not to even refer to a list of
> these countries?
No, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to go into the details that
I - and other maintainers - were told by lawyers.
I'm also not going to start discussing legal issues with random
internet people who I seriously suspect are paid actors and/or have
been riled up by them.
First, you’re acting like the decision was made by Linus or another member of the team and that they weren’t following the law.
Second, even if that weren’t the case, it’s still completely free. Unless you can name one of the following freedoms that was impacted by those actions:
What “not at all free dogmas” are you referencing, and why is “free” in scare quotes?
“But tante, then we will never have Open Source AI”. Exactly. That’s how reality works. If you can’t fulfil the criteria of a category you are not in that category. The fix is not to change the criteria. That’s playing pigeon chess.
This is a bad take. If your criteria aren’t grounded in reality, they aren’t useful, so of course you should change the criteria.
It’s also a missed opportunity to point to an AI model that did things right and that would qualify as “open source AI” even if that definition were not watered down. For example, OLMo (which I just learned about) says that they provide full insight into the training data as well as “full model weights, training code, training logs, training metrics in the form of Weights & Biases logs, and inference code.” Their most complex models are 7B models, which is enough to be relevant.
Saying “Meta and Alphabet will never release Open Source AI that meets the proposed definition” is fine. Saying “we’ll never have Open Source AI, period, that meets the proposed definition” means your proposed definition needs rewritten.
So, to be clear, my opinion was about what’s reasonable to do and was informed by our culture and laws. Your objection seems to be related to what should be legal, which is different and is more complicated, as the laws have to balance restricting and potentially damaging businesses with protecting people from discrimination.
From a legal perspective, IMO larger businesses should be held to much tighter standards than small businesses. I think it would be reasonable to legally require Google or Meta to have a reason to ban someone, to have to share that explanation, and to have to allow an appeal to be unbanned to be arbitrated by a third party, without “we can ban anyone for any reason” allowed as a defense.
We also see it being abused with the allowance of a few "good ones" from said protected class to avoid discrimination claims while still discriminating against the rest of said class.
Obviously this isn’t a reasonable thing for them to do.
If a business is discriminating against a protected class and only letting in a few “good ones,” then statistically it should be able to be shown that they ban far more people in that class than outside it.
I believe there should be reasons required to ban someone.
How do you manage that, practically speaking, in a capitalist society? If a business owner thinks someone is acting suspicious and is likely to steal or break something, but they can’t ban them until they have a “valid” reason, if that person then breaks or steals something, that business owner has been damaged by the government’s policy. Is the government going to make them whole? No, of course not.
Does the reason need to be disclosed to the person being banned, or just recorded for future reference? A lot of the time people get defensive and angry when told the truth about what they did that made other people not want to deal with them. If someone’s been leering at customers, smells terrible, is loud and disruptive, or is just plain acting weird, telling them as much when you tell them they have to leave probably isn’t going to help them feel better.
Not just because you own the place and don't want them in your place as they make you/other customers uncomfortable.
Why do you think it’s okay for a business owner and their employees to be legally forced to deal with someone that makes them uncomfortable?
Do business owners just need to be able to articulate why someone discomforts them? Is someone judging whether a reason is good enough, or do you just need any reason, or is there a list of acceptable reasons? In the last case, what sorts of reasons are acceptable?
If a business can point to measurements they’ve taken showing that when Joe shows up, they lose money - either because their clients leave, don’t come back, or stop spending money - is that a good enough reason to ban Joe? What if this is just because their clients are all racist and Joe is black?
If a business bans Joe because of a particular reason and then Jim does the same thing, is the business forced to ban Jim?
But it's still relevant as it's the reason homeless people
The easy solution for this is to make being homeless a protected class. Homeless people need specific protections at a federal level, because they’re discriminated against by local and even state governments. That’s not the only class that needs this, either, to be clear.
That said, all of the times I’ve seen a homeless person banned from an establishment wasn’t because they were homeless, but because of some other reason. The one I remember clearest was a woman who had started talking to me and my girlfriend (at the time) while we were sitting at a table in a coffee shop. She asked us for money or food after just a couple minutes, then went to go and talk to someone else and after a few minutes was noticed by the staff and told to leave. When I asked about it, I gathered that she’d been banned because of multiple complaints from customers about her doing just that.
“Jurisdiction” is a legal concept and the way you’re using it makes no sense unless you’re referring to restraining orders or trespassing warnings being issued by courts/police from different towns or states.
I’m assuming you’re talking about private establishments that have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for almost any reason (exceptions being if doing so is discrimination against a protected class).
If so, then here’s my opinion: If you own or manage a shop, bar, club, gym, etc., it’s reasonable to ban someone because they aren’t the sort of person you want in your establishment. Maybe they make you or your other customers uncomfortable. Maybe they don’t want their place to get a reputation for being where Bad Egg Craig, whose antics sent some folks to the ER, hangs out. Maybe they share ban lists with the owners of other establishments, either because they’re friends or for purely business reasons (if your actions have cost the owner of one establishment money, it’s more likely you’ll do the same elsewhere), the same way insurance companies protect their interests by raising premiums.
What does the Hague Convention have to do with anything? Unless it’s being enforced by the same people it’s completely irrelevant.
Anyone have a link to a mirror of the taken down video from the article?