Forgejo will now transform fediverse handles (ex. @forgejo@floss.social and !forgejo@programming.dev) into links to https://fedirect.toolforge.org/, a website hosted by Wikimedia, to redirect fediverse handles to their respective URLs via Webfinger. Forgejo is working on implementing proper federated mentions that will also notify users on other federated services, which the redirection does not do.

OpenGL is an API standard. It defines data structures, operation interfaces, and behavior.

Mesa 3D is an implementation of OpenGL. It can be used so users of OpenGL can call it to draw stuff.

Vulkan is a newer API standard. It is newer and was designed with a lot of new hardware and hardware capabilities in mind, and significantly reduced what the job of the API is supposed to do compared to OpenGL. Essentially giving API users many more opportunities to control graphics pipeline behavior for better efficiency and performance. Libraries and frameworks exist that provide more convenience and prepared setup or opinionated usage patterns on top of Vulkan.

DirectX had a similar shift with DirectX version 12, which also implemented closer-to-hardware APIs similar to Vulkan vs OpenGL.

Have you considered AdGuard Public DNS? What made you choose NextDNS over it?

I value choosing between two styles by feel for improving readability and conciseness.

For example, allowing one-liner early-returns if they are concise enough. If they are not, they must be multi-line with a block with curly braces. There’s no linter rule that defines what “simple enough” is, and most linters don’t do rules with condition either.

It’s not OpenAI putting their AI into products though. It’s other companies and CEOs.

Web is just one kind of frontend though. And there’s more ways to target web with JavaScript interfacing than transpiling to JavaScript.

Apps like AdGuard for Windows or macOS work at the system level, so they block ads and trackers across all browsers and even other apps.

How? What does “system level” mean? Sounds like it must be not only system level but manipulating programs?

/edit: Product page and FAQ are non-telling. Finally found the knowledge base which is not linked in the main nav.

They man-in-the-middle HTTPS for example. So yeah, more intrusive than what I would understand as “system level” behavior.

How does HTTPS filtering work? If it were easy, HTTPS wouldn’t be that secure.

Uhm, yeah.

I don’t get what the article is trying to say. It contradicts itself or doesn’t make sense.

consists of Instagram, Meta-owned Facebook, and Snapchat

Meta-owned Facebook - contrary to… Meta-owned Instagram? The whole point of the article is that Meta owns both. I’m confused by one being owner-labeled here and the other not, in a listing of services, describing social media landscape.

the now-competing platforms would see more ads – including the same ones on both platforms, which the researchers show could lead to lower click-through rates

Their whole argument is: 1. competition leads to lower ad prices 2. split and lower ad prices leads to more ad impressions/displaying

Lower click-through rates are not a problem for users either.
Will users really see the same ads on both platforms when they did not before?
The article should have better separated advertiser impact from user impact.

What’s left is their claim, apparently founded on previous and their own new studies, that users will see more ads. I’m skeptical we can say that now. Especially with why this whole thing is a question in the first place…

This isn’t good news for the FTC, which sued Meta in 2020 on the grounds that it acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp two years later with the intention of using its market power to squash competitors.

Not good news for the FTC? They sue for monopoly and win. What does that have to do with ads and ad impressions? So far off the whole point.

Katz cautions that their study isn’t saying that an Instagram spin-off would necessarily be the wrong solution if Meta is ruled a monopolist. While the effects on digital advertising are significant, “there are other reasons why a Facebook-Instagram separation might be beneficial,” he says. “This includes encouraging other platforms to enter the social media market or investments in other aspects of the user experience, like better privacy protections.”

Last paragraph, or quote, seems to disregard the entire article that came before it.

Why is single line comments listed when it’s green for all of them? Do they not have multi-line comments?

What are "frontend language"s?

Just wondering if this is very incomplete or due to scoping.

I don’t know. So it very well may be zero.

If you have those problems it’s probably time to invest into clearing all those risks and uncertainties up. Even if you just let it sit because it works, there is no telling what it means for company, IT, and data security.

It’s not like everything has to be upgraded at once either. Windows is quite compatible. The main thing is the hardware requirement when upgrading to 11.

Mr Zuckerberg has dismissed the allegations in court filings as “extreme claims”.

Claims being extreme alone isn’t really a dismissal.

“Those claims are extreme! But correct.” pays /s

I’ve read plenty of criticism about those.

If you go from the article to the news category, the previous article is about Bumble, a US dating platform, then German news companies, then Meta’s WhatsApp.

So… I really don’t see what you’re claiming.

• 44% Male/Masculine
• 39% No information
• 18% Female/Feminine

Tech bias even on public domain open contribution datasets. Apparently could use more female contributors.

It depends.

If you can do a static website, don’t need user content management, do it. You evade all kinds of trouble and technical complexity.

warning letter? throw them out right away

A bit too broad to give a specific answer from my side.

Overall, I prefer web based over apps, because I can CSS hack and if necessary JS hack them.

Web also means it doesn’t litter my PC or mobile phone or tablet. And that it can’t fetch more data than it needs or I want it to have access to.

Bad software is bad software, no matter if it’s installed or on the web.

The git compatibility is necessary for adoption and connected use.

jj does significantly reduce the work interface, but the git compatibility increases complexity again.

I tried it out a little bit a few days ago, and found it interesting. But given my git knowledge and tooling, I can’t reasonably switch. First, I would miss my TortoiseGit Log view (entrypoint to everything). But also, the connection between jj and git seems complex and potentially error prone.

As a fresh and independent tool I can definitely see how it’s much easier and better, especially for people not familiar with Git.

from some time ago

It’s a fair statement and personal experience, but a question is, does this change with tool changes and user experience? Which makes studies like OP important.

Your >95% garbage claim may very well be an isolated issue due to tech or lib or llm usage patters or whatnot. And it may change over time, with different models or tooling.