Heck, it probably can be done with a regex. (Yeah, I know)

There’s no need to kill three forests just to do the exact same work you could have done by opening your dataset in Excel.

“Wide Chile”.

So, Luigi.

Forgejo gives you a registry built-in.

Also is it just me or does the docker hub logo look like it’s giving us the middle finger?

No I mean, I don’t “trust” a groceries store. I only use them to trade for groceries, and only use cash when doing so.

Just because I use someone doesn’t mean I trust them. Even more: just becaue I trust Alice, that doesn’t mean I trust Bob by transitivity.

Example 1: So you buy at toms groceries, you trust them.

[citation needed]

A fair point that I admittedly don’t know how to solve. The closest I’ve got to a “functional” idea is to focus on splitting the two (I think? maybe three) things that an “upvote” is interpreted as, and supplementing with also the opposite / counter message:

• “I like what this post is about” (basically a like / heart / kudos)
• “I found this information useful / verified / checked” (a more proper upvote)
• (optionally) “I want this information to be more easily found”

Pretty much everything else can be a comment, as you say, but the purpose and reception of a message should also be as streamlined to communicate as possible.

and non-violent

And that would be good… why?

Oh get off their high horse. I know of no instance that is like Ecosia where your activity gets to, dunno, plant a tree or something. If you say online spaces somehow physically fight fascism, show me how many homeless people is your instance physically sheltering or helping immigrate to a better country, and we’ll talk.

Like, I love this kind of web space as much as the next person; but I don’t fancy myself in the emperor’s clothes.

This is one of the reasons why I’d love to see a more expanded method of reacting to content rather than simply upvoting or dowvoting; something like, say, user-side thread or post tagging, with things like “verified”, “clickbait”, and mood reacts like “happy” vs “sad”, and usefulness reacts like “solved, thanks” vs “closed as duplicate”, etc. We need more and better axes.

(Axises? Axeses? Asses?)

Like, of course; tho any sort of “accounting” should IMO start from the base that the intent of this entire thing is to publicly share public information.

, which is of course faulty logic

…which is why design systems so that when using them we can account for the human element, right? Come on! We have centuries-spanning systems even industries built on that! Engineering, avionics, Yelp reviews…

Not them but yes but it’s not a feature of the system, it’s a failure of the humans.

Yes please do.

unexpectedly

From the BBC? Wow!

I can mentally hear exactly why the inflation is rising in the voice of good ol’ dear David Attenborough.

Doesn’t need to (but yeah yeah they’re Google, I know…). They just should name it “Gulf of México” or whatever the translated name is to the user’s device, and add an asterisk somewhere that shows a note to the effect of “a small fraction of Confederate remnants think it should be called ‘Gulf of America’”.

I don’t really buy it tbh. People nowadays take pride in using stuff without understanding it. From Cookie Clicker, to even something as dangerous as car driving. In theory, they should be salivating at the Fediverse.

Hey at least you’ll never run out of ich_iel!

What else do people expect them to do?

1.- Refuse-

2.- Apply only the part of the name change that’s actually covered by US jurisdiction. The Gulf of Mexico extends noticeably beyond US’s borders.

But hey this is Google we’re talking about.

Besides, it still say Gulf of Mexico if you’re outside the USA.

If I’m a eg.: Colombian, it should be “Gulf of Mexico” “Golfo de México” wherever I stand, not “Gulf of America”.

Oh please. Principles are like asses: everyone’s got one, and everyone thinks it’s other peoples’s that stink.

Many things are worth nil on principle. It’s the execution that matters.