cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2615118
As shown below, it appears that all Firefox tabs are just named "Firefox" within the volume mixer. This doesn't exactly make differentiating them very easy. Is it possible to make the volume mixer show the names of the tabs instead? If not, is there any feature in the works for this that anyone may be aware of?
Forums are an invaluable source of information for countless purposes. Even extremely old forum posts can be a life-saver.
If you look next to the user's name in a comment when viewing through the Lemmy Web UI you'll see the following:
What is this?
I think it's time to close some of your open tabs.
I just recently noticed the following button in the comment section:
Clicking it appears to make the comments look somewhat like what you see on Mastodon, but I'm a little unsure about it's exact format. Is it only showing parent comments? Is it showing parent and child comments all mixed together? If so, in what order? Is it in order of when the comment was added? If it does show child comments, is it possible to see that child's context?
It appears that it is not opensource, unfortunately.
You do realize that you don't need to join Lemmy.world, right? There's plenty of other instances with different moderation policies that might suit you, or you could just make your own instance. That's kind of the whole point of the fediverse. The reason why there's so much contention around this post is because the people who have accounts here are somewhat stuck until account migration is added.
Only thing different is, anyone that doesn’t agree with it can literally just… Fuck off to wherever they want
Unfortunately, until account migration is added, this is not as straightforward as it may sound.
Your comment's intent is rather dubious -- why post a quote from Lemmygrad, when the original post was talking about Hexbear? I encourage you to state that your quote is from Lemmygrad within the comment itself, instead of hiding it behind a link.
it became evident that allowing Hexbear to federate would violate our rules.
For the sake of absolute transparency, and clarity, would you mind specifying exactly what rules would be violated if Hexbear were to be allowed to federate with Lemmy.world?
Hexbar has no intention of "respecting the rules of the community instance in which they are posting/commenting.”
This is a rather assumptive statement. You can only guess that this would happen, and have no tangible proof that it actually would -- the previous quotes that you provided outline your ideological differences, and not proof of conspiracy. You leave out the fact that in the Hexbear post that you linked they are telling their users to behave on other instances. In the quotes that you provided, you, quite conveniently, left out some important contextual information which changes the perceived intent -- the full version of the quotes that you pulled is as follows:
Please read and respect the rules of the community instance in which you are posting/commenting. Please try to keep the dirtbag lib-dunking to hexbear itself. Do not follow the Chapo Rules of Posting, instead try to engage utilizing informed rhetoric with sources to dismantle western propaganda. Posting the western atrocity propaganda and pig poop balls is hilarious but will pretty quickly get you banned and if enough of us do it defederated. Realize that you are a representative of the hexbear instance when you post on other instances.
While, yes, I agree that this is a rather uncouth way to word an official statement to the members of an instance, it shows quite the opposite for intent to spread harm to other instances.
In addition, several comments from a Hexbear admin, demonstrate that instance rules will not be respected.
Here are some examples:
“I can assure you there will be no lemmygrad brigades, that energy would be better funneled into the current war against liberalism on the wider fediverse.”
“All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.”
Your point here makes little sense to me. If anything, the examples that you just provided state otherwise. These quotes do not prove intent to cause harm on other instances through rule breaking. Your argument seems to be founded purely on an ideological difference.
I have no issue at all with defederating with an instance if they are obviously harmful to the fediverse on the whole -- instances that promote spam, trolling, brigading, etc; however, hexbear, from what I see in the linked official post, shows no evidence of such intent. All I see is difference in ideology.
Flatpak -- It's not without it's own issues, of course, but it does the job. I'm not fan of how snaps are designed, and I don't think canonical is trustworthy enough to run a packaging format. Appimages are really just not good for widespread adoption. They do what they are designed to do well, but I don't think it's wide to use them as a main package format.
That's actually not a terrible idea. Lemmy really needs content. It doesn't necessarily matter what that content is, it Is just really starving for activity in general. So anything that you post is a huge help.
Y'all don't update your services?
Hm, I have trouble trusting any information on that site for a number of reasons:
- There have been no code audit and an independent security analysis, and hence we must take Element’s word. No one can mark his own homework.
- Matrix has had at least one embarrassing security breach, indicating that their infrastructure security is lacking.
They seem to be referring to "Matrix", and "Element" interchangeably which doesn't make any logical sense as "Matrix" describes the underlying federation protocol, and "Element" one of many clients that exist. This line of thinking can also be seen in the comparison table; the column title is "Element/Riot", and yet much of the data contained in the table is referring to things related to the protocol.
There have been no code audit and an independent security analysis, and hence we must take Element’s word. No one can mark his own homework.
Ignoring that they say "Element", and, instead, assuming that they intended to say "Matrix", from what I can see, there are at least two independent audits that have been done -- their respective information can be found on the blog posts here, and here. and secondly,
Matrix has had at least one embarrassing security breach, indicating that their infrastructure security is lacking.
Ignoring the fact that this statement makes no logical sense since "Matrix" is a protocol, and therefore the idea of a "security" breach does not even apply, I'm going to instead assume that they are referring to the home-server "matrix.org". The security breach I'm assuming that they are referring to is described in the blog post here:
TL;DR: An attacker gained access to the servers hosting Matrix.org. The intruder had access to the production databases, potentially giving them access to unencrypted message data, password hashes and access tokens.
I'm not entirely sure what the author was insinuating, since this is just something that affected the matrix.org homeserver and no one else, and has absolutely nothing to do with the security of the protocol on the whole. The only important thing with this is whether or not the retrived unencrypted data (ignoring the messages) has any affect of compromising the security of the user -- this author, unfortunately, makes no effort to explore this idea, and just moves on.
There are plenty of other discontinuties that can be picked apart from this person's site, but these were the most immediately glaring.___
They're viewable on Lemmy too!