Not sure about Lemmy but I think on Reddit it used to be called 13 or 30, not 14 or 40.

Would you rather doom scroll on a device that can’t even run Doom or doom scroll wearing Doctor Doom’s mask?

I would venture a guess and say that most animals (at least land animals that aren’t subject to motions of the surrounding medium like fish are) would probably communicate face to face, not sure what is considered so unusual about that.

I guess it makes sense to come up with a separate term between the dual uses of top/switch/bottom and dom/switch/sub.

My brain tends to do that to me fairly often, making me read words split up differently. Most recently I discovered that Chicago could also be interpreted as a game similar to Pokemon Go! with a Spanish girl protagonist (Chica Go!).

Wasn’t the whole day invented to basically make meaningful romantic gestures impossible in mid-February?

Must be from one of those bird species with spotted eggs?

Keep in mind that the people advocating for AI in all kinds of fields without good reason now are the very same people who never liked the privacy rules in the first place.

You are technically correct and yet you are missing the original point that people expect the super-intelligent AGI of science fiction when they hear the term, no matter how much all those lesser forms are AI too by the definition of the scientific field.

Neither the position to keep all the old solutions because they are old nor to adopt all the new solutions because they are new is sensible.

Some old solutions worked in the past and don’t work anymore because the actual world around us changed (the bits outside our control, e.g. some resources might be more sparse but were more plentiful in the past, human populations are larger, the world is more interconnected,…).

Some old solutions appeared to work in the past because we didn’t have the knowledge about their flaws yet but now that we do we need new ones.

Some new solutions are genuine improvements, others are merely sold by marketing and hype.

Some new solutions have studies, data or even logic and math backing them up while others are adopted on a whim or even contrary to evidence or logic.

We can not escape the fact that the world is complex and requires evaluation on a case by case basis and simplistic positions like “keep everything old” or “replace everything old” do not work.

To be fair ActivityPub is a pretty shitty protocol in terms of scaling up with all the quadratic communication and caching growth it requires. Not that ATprotocol is better, just that there is room for improvement on ActivityPub before it could be used on a world-wide scale for the entire human population the way major social media sites are right now.

What kind of person makes their car brand their social media display name?

I hear butterfs even runs on a potato.

Also to advocate for a specific tab size while also advocating for hard tabs is nonsense. The one flimsy claim to usefulness tabs have is that different people can use different tab sizes and all at the low, low cost of everyone having five times more work to use tabs for indentations and spaces for alignment and thus having to use visual whitespace of some kind.

Also, expanding on that, if you go into every interaction with a narrow expectation (e.g. to find the love of your life) you will be disappointed almost all the time but if you keep an open mind you might come out of that with some other positive interactions (a new friend, an interesting conversation, …) than you expected or were hoping for.

And I am saying that that information you are referring to is unknown for any given CVE unless it is unlocked by some investment of effort that usually far exceeds the effort to actually fix it and we already don’t have enough resources to fix all the bugs, much less assess the impact of every bug.

Assessing the impact on the other hand is an activity that is only really useful for two things

• a risk / impact assessment of an update to decide if you want to update or not
• determining if you were theoretically vulnerable in the past

You could add prioritizing fixes to that list but then, as mentioned, impact assessments are usually more work than actual fixes and spending more effort prioritizing than actually fixing makes no sense.

I am familiar with CVSS and its upsides and downsides. I am talking about the amount of resources required to determine that kind of information for every single bug, resources that far exceed the resources required to fix the bug.

New bugs are introduced in backports as well, think of that Debian issue where generated keys had flaws for years because of some backport. The idea that any version, whether the same you have been using, the latest one or a backported one, will not gain new exploits or new known bugs is not something that holds up in practice.

The idea that it is somehow possible to determine that for each and every bug is a crazy fantasy by the people who don’t like to update to the latest version.

If there was hard science behind UI design they wouldn’t totally redesign everything every couple of years.

I guess you are using trust in a different way here. Trust in competency can vary with both volunteer and paid workers, everyone makes mistakes though. Trust that someone doesn’t do something deliberately malicious is a different matter though.