Didn’t click on your links. But LEA does this move against any network that may offer anonymization. Don’t use Tor hidden services. Don’t go near I2P. Stay away from Freenet…etc. This even includes any platform that is seen as not fully under control, like Telegram at some point.

In its essence, this move is no different from “Don’t go near Lemmy because it’s a Putin-supporting communist platform filled with evil state agents”.

Does any network that may offer anonymization (even if misleadingly) attract undesirable people, possibly including flat out criminals? Yes.

Should everyone stay away from all of them because of that? That’s up to each individual to decide, preferably after seeing for themselves.

But parroting “think of the children” talking points against individual networks points to either intellectual deficiency, high susceptibility to consent-manufacturing propaganda, or some less innocent explanations.

Apologies if I was presumptions and/or my tone was too aggressive.

Quibbling at No Moderation = Bad usually refers to central moderation where “someone” decides for others what they can and can’t see without them having any say in the matter.

Bad moderation is an experienced problem at a much larger scale. It in fact was one of the reasons why this very place even exists. And it was one of the reasons why “transparent moderation” was one of the celebrated features of Lemmy with its public Modlog, although “some” quickly started to dislike that and try to work around it, because power corrupts, and the modern power seeker knows how to moral grandstand while power grabbing.

All trust systems give the user the power, by either letting him/her be the sole moderator, or by letting him/her choose moderators (other users) and how much each one of them is trusted and how much weight their judgment carries, or by letting him/her configure more elaborate systems like WoT the way he/she likes.

Because there isn’t a solution.

This has been discussed and experimented with to death where such networks existed for a long time. Just because you never heard of them or even knew they exist doesn’t mean that they don’t.

See Freenet/Hyphanet and the three approaches (local trust, shared user trust lists, web of trust) if you want to learn something. The second one worked out the best from a performance and scalability point of view compared to the third.

Not only is IPFS not built on solid foundations, offered nothing new to the table, and is generally bad at data retention, but the “opt-in seeding” model was always a step backwards and not a good match for apps like plebbit.

The anonymous distributes filesystem model (a la Freenet/Hyphanet) where each file segment is anonymously and randomly “inserted” into the distributed filesystem is the way to go. This fixes the “seeder power” problem, as undesirable but popular content can stay highly available automatically, and unpopular but desirable content can be re-inserted/healed periodically by healers (seeders). Only both unpopular and undesirable content may fizzle out of the network, but that can only happen in the context of messaging apps/platforms if 0 people tried pull and 0 people tried to reinsert the content in question over a long period of time.

Now that others got all the technicalities out of the way, maybe ChromeOS/ChromiumOS would be something along the lines of what you’re looking for? not that anyone should choose to daily-drive it.

In case the wording tripped anyone, generators (blocks and functions) have been available for a while as an unstable feature.

This works (playground):

#![feature(gen_blocks)]

gen fn gfn() -> i32 {
    for i in 1..=10 {
        yield i;
    }
}

fn gblock() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
    gen {
        for i in 1..=10 {
            yield i;
        }
    }
}

fn main() {
    for i in gfn() {
        println!("{i} from gfn()");
    }
    for i in gblock() {
        println!("{i} from gblock()");
    }
}

Note that the block-in-fn version works better at this moment (from a developer’s PoV) because rust-analyzer currently treats gfn() as an i32 value. But the block-in-fn pattern works perfectly already.

even if he wrote “half”, he would still be wrong, and still suffering from multiple levels of dissonance.

• Not all x86 laptops are like you describe.
• Non-Apple ARM laptops exist. They in fact predate Apple’s move to ARM. Not only that, Linux was actually the primary target platform for many of them.

Sure, there were/are still some bits and pieces of hardware support missing, but the overall experience rivaled or exceeded what you could get on most x86 laptops.

But then also came the entitled users. This time, it wasn’t about stealing games, it was about features. “When is Thunderbolt coming?” “Asahi is useless to me until I can use monitors over USB-C” “The battery life sucks compared to macOS” (nobody ever complained when compared to x86 laptops…) “I can’t even check my CPU temperature” (yes, I seriously got that one).

how many levels of dissonance is that?

Traditional server-based self-hosting will have lower average uptime, will be easier to attack, and will have a much higher chance of disappearing out of nowhere (bus factor event, or for any other reason).

A decentralized or distributed solution would make more sense as a suggestion here. Radicale (this one) is such an effort I’m aware of, although I never tried it myself or take a look at its architecture.

Pretends to rage-quit from contributing, not resigns.

Good riddance, unless they learn how to behave like well adjusted adults, instead of constantly playing to a microblogtard crowd. <= That’s what would I have wrote if something relevant actually happened, which is not the case.

And this is coming from a Rustacean.

This more belongs to a “linux drama” community (if one exists).

Is there a tiling Wayland compositor out there that supports applying custom shaders to windows (similar to picom)? This has been a known limitation for many years. And I brought it up myself with a couple of compositors’ developers, and they told me that it would break direct scan-out, and I told them that I would be fine with that, and then discussions fizzled out.

I also tried an x11vnc alternative I don’t remember the name of, and besides the generally buggy experience, it completely broke when power management kicked on the sever side (turning off the monitor IIRC). So that’s another show stopper, although maybe not as relevant as custom shader support which I need for applying my custom color inversion shaders to specific windows, otherwise, my vision would go bad quickly.

So yeah, I will be sticking with my Awesome WM (+picom +x11vnc) setup for a while too.

The highest cost for most projects comes from the CI runners.

i2p only provides anonymous transport, so not relevant at all.

ipfs is joke tech (you would be better off building something on top of good old torrents).

A fanatic microblogger* inflating some kernel drama, and inviting the microblog echo chamber and the whole internet gantry to chime in… is surely worthy of being the hottest topic of the day.

* Yes, I know who they are.

Releasing a v1 would be misleading anyway, even if the language itself is ready for it (it isn’t)… because they use zig in their standard library 😉

I can’t tell if we are miscommunicating here, or if my leg is being pulled.

You are not aware of staunchly anti-OOP (object oriented programming) people existing? Anti-OOP is a majority position now (always was in my circles). And the holdout proponents would usually only defend one (limited or revisionist) way of doing it, usually referring to some specific language implementation. Long gone is the quintessential list of OOP talking points presented in C++/Java classes in the 90’s.

For people new to this, a quick search should lead to an endless stream of results. I found this one immediately which looks decent and covers good ground.

What are your thoughts on oop?

I don’t like it. Reasons are well documented by others if you look for them.

I also wrote that part half-jokingly, and as a way to intrigue people to read until that part. And now you called my bluff 😶

The term open-standard does not cut it. People should start using “publicly available and sharable” instead (maybe there is a better name for it).

ISO standards for example are technically “open”. But how relevant is that to a curious individual developer when anything you need to implement would require access to multiple “open” standards, each coming with a (monetary) price, with some extra shenanigans ^[archived] on top.

IETF standards however are actually truly open, as in publicly available and sharable.