That’s exactly what I said, and meant: I miss my jailbroken iPhone; I wish I could jailbreak mine now. But I can’t. And my 6 would be basically unusable without App Store support now.
That’s not why I’m replying though… I’m curious; what’s with insults like “eat me” over interpretations of someone else’s comment?
First thing, Lemmy is in need of content and likes recruiting. Hence you got 315 replies, heh.
Basically, if you aren’t a bigot, you don’t have to worry about what you say. You can be politically incorrect in any direction and not get a global/shadowban from the Fediverse.
Each instance has its own flavor and etiquette.
They are human. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that, while also reiterating that they basically shouldn’t be in that state.
Also, I think it’s important to draw a line between the “rich” (well-off working professionals like researchers, doctors, small entrepreneurs), and people with more wealth than many sovereign nations put together.
Thanks. I appreciate the condescending comment.
Apple does sell privacy. They market it as a feature.
And their hardware sales margins are hilarious.
So in this case they do have some incentive for privacy/security.
In this case, perhaps. The problem is it’s what Apple offers, or the highway.
…I really, really miss my jailbroken iPhone. Honestly I would trade for a (working) iPhone 6 without even blinking.
I suppose not. Not yet.
I know people are particular about WMs, but having to minimize a window vs keeping the window decoration in place seems like a… very minor distinction.
Is the use case rearranging a ton of windows? Something like that?
Oops, thanks.
Apparently, this is hardly hyperbole. For example: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377162
Talk about arrogance. In the window paradigm, only a few desktops ever REQUIRED a similar look and feel for all windows. Apple was the worst offender for that. I suggest that if Edmundson wants a similar look and feel, he should go get himself a Mac and stop mucking up KDE.
From a quick look at the proposed patch - and obviously without having the full picture - it’s true that it would add some complexity. But it’s code for the sake of people’s convenience, not the other way around, right? IMHO, as long as:
- shading is off by default,
- users get a clear message about limitations and SSD/CSD complications before enabling it,
- the implementation doesn’t introduce impossible-to-maintain logic and limits some weird edge cases like resizing a shaded window, then it’s worth doing.
TBH this is one reason I got off Ubuntu/KDE Neon.
It kept trying to roll Nvidia+KDE fixes forward (including one I dealt with in their bug tracker), which I had to manually figure out and maintain, which I kept breaking, so I finally decided “why don’t I just use a distro where everything Nvidia/KDE is up to date?”
It’s a very Linux thing.
People get very particular about their setups.
The KDE bug tracker now:
I don’t even know what window shading is…. What is it?
It looks like it’s still being discussed:
website
Bingo.
All the dev work is in the app.
I just wish I could systematically prevent myself from making any mistake lol, or like anyone from making the first mistake.
…I guess we theoretically could, via a Lemmy or Piefed PR, heh.
As an example, we could implement an opt-in feature that pops-up community rules before one is allowed to post. Kinda like Discord, but less obnoxious.
That’s one reason why I like this place. If something about the site’s UX design in problematic, there’s somewhere to go to get it improved. With any corporate social media, your only assurance is that it will get worse with time.
That’s kinda the idea behind moderation.
It’s why it’s best done in small communites, as the narrow context narrows the scope of the arbitrary judgement.
I’m not trying to grandstand. My issue is with these presumptions:
like if the mods want to auto-ban everyone who doesn’t personally verify with them their womanhood, that’s their business. but expecting people to self-police their gender is a dumb expectation.
They’re not checking you at the door. They aren’t auto banning anyone. They very politely point out the sidebar to a few posters, then request them to stay quiet; that’s the extent of it.
…If you don’t make an issue of that, it’s not an issue.
if you want a private exclusive type of space… then make it private and exclusive. that way you can control who views and interacts with the event and even hire security to keep the ‘wrong’ people out.
But this is unrealistic, as then they wouldn’t get nearly as much participation in the space. It’s a public gathering spot, by choice.
Again, my specific problem is with commenters that are shown the rules by the mods, yet willingly choose to ignore them.
Just because you think rules are unrealistic does not give you a right to ignore them once asked. That’s how every community here works. Yet they seem to get tons of posters carrying that bad attitude, with that same line of argument.
That’s what makes me bristle. Respecting community rules (once known) is basic human civility, and people are perfectly capable of ‘self-policing’ that. I do not like the rejection of that + the policing of others in its place.
Wandering in, missing the rule sign, getting corrected, and apologizing is fine. I’ve done it; the mods there couldn’t have been nicer about it. It’s not an ideal system, no, but it works well enough; it’s the mods shouldering that burden more than anything.
…The problem is when the guys are corrected, yet keep talking anyway. Which I see happen a lot.
There is no excuse for that.
Is the best behavior to block any community you don’t or can’t participate in? I personally don’t love that behavior because I like seeing what everyone is discussing in threads, but that’s a reasonable solution.
I feel extremely mixed about this, yeah. I feel weird even talking about it.
I personally don’t love that behavior because I like seeing what everyone is discussing in threads, but that’s a reasonable solution.
The women’s space… doesn’t prohibit lurking? On one hand, the community is public, and I’m curious about the perspective in the discussions. I’m interested in understanding them so I can be a more respectful person myself.
I upvote their posts so they get more exposure.
…But I don’t want to violate their privacy either. Blocking is reasonable. Right now, I just upvote them but don’t enter the threads.
Obviously my current strat is just reading the community before posting (like not commenting negatively about Star Gate getting a new season in the star gate community as an example that happened today lol).
Read the room, yeah.
IMO TV fandoms shouldn’t worship their material. Negative discussion is allowed, otherwise the space gets toxic.
In fact, this kinda happened to one of my personal fandom spaces, /r/thelastairbender: among other things, they idolize ATLA (the original series) like a diety, to the point where anything different (including other material like Korra or the Netflix adaption) is demonized. Deeper stuff like the novels, fanfics or speculative lore is not welcome either.
That sucks. It’s all too common; the Star Wars fandom (for instance) is notorious for it. And its why some negativity and ‘outsider perspectives’ should be welcomed in such spaces.
The women’s space is different though. It’s basically a shelter from the shit this group puts up with IRL and online, so being more sensitive makes sense.
To correct your ‘public park’ analogy, the space is public. Anyone can wander in. But it has clear signs posted at the only entrance saying its a space for women to speak, please be quiet, otherwise.
Missing the sign and apologizing is understandable.
But but if you wander in and knowingly violate that rule by electing to speak up, that is no one’s fault but yours.
personally i have a dick but i don’t really identify as being a ‘man’. nor do identify as being a ‘woman’. i’m just a person. so am i therefore allowed to commentate? or is the mods who determine my sex/gender status, regardless of how i perceive myself?
…A primary reason for that rule is basically “don’t be a dick about this being a women’s only space, please.”
If you feel you qualify as a woman to speak in the space, go for it! That’s the idea. That’s the spirit of the rule. But you specifically say "nor do [I] identify as being a ‘woman’. "
Making an issue out of it is precisely what is unwanted. So is trying to blame the space for your deliberate choice.
I don’t get why this is so hard to grasp. It’s simple.
It’ll literally be a criminal hub, with a bunch of anonymized posts joking about dodging corpos. Probably.
And owls. Still owls.
FBI? No, I am not opening up.