Firefox now includes safeguards to prevent sites from abusing the history API by generating excessive history entries, which can make navigating with the back and forward buttons difficult by cluttering the history. This intervention ensures that such entries, unless interacted with by the user, are skipped when using the back and forward buttons.
Nice
You're right, based on those definitions the word doesn't mean what I intended. I don't know what the right word would be. I used it to mean one who overreacts to relatively minor or inconsequential transgressions, taking drastic, often out-of-proportion or only tangentially relevant actions to rectify perceived harms.
One example would include people ditching the entire company Proton, an entity with a stellar track record of improving the state of privacy on the internet, after a single member of their board made some dipshit comments. Another example might include the general reaction a few months ago when that misleading story about Mozilla and ad tracking was making the rounds. Other more extreme examples would be the passing of the Patriot Act and invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11, or the Israeli response to 2023's attack on them.
He's saying they're wrong for not currently being open.
15 is the percent of the tip, not the percent increase in tip income over the last decade. If the tip percentage stays constant, then the tip amount rises in direct proportion to the food cost. The fair comparison is rent increase vs. restaurant food price increase. The data I found indicates rent's gone up at an average of 4% per year in the last decade, and that restaurant food prices have risen by a similar amount - anywhere from 3-7% depending on the industry.
Everyone is struggling. It is not unique to servers. And I do tip - just a reasonable 15%. If a server is struggling to get by on 15% tips, they should harass their boss and their senator, not their customers who are likely struggling as well.
I still thinks his takes were bad and tone-deaf. I get that he liked a certain appointee Trump made that's relevant to his industry. And, knowing nothing at all about the appointee myself, they may in actuality be a good pick. But he went well beyond praising the appointee, to praising Trump and Republicans in general - albeit for the specific narrow topic of "reigning in big tech".
While his takes were arguably valid given recent history (I'd still say not), it was completely tone deaf to the reality of what the present-day Republican party and Trump mean for America, and especially ignorant of the obvious buddying-up big tech has done with Trump in the past few months.
I think if he narrowly aimed his praise at the appointee herself, without then making sweeping generalities about Republicans vs. Democrats, that nobody here would even be aware of who he is, let alone what he said.
I do think the internet in general tends to be very reactionary - I don't think Lemmy is any more reactionary than, say, reddit, but both are very reactionary. Anyone who jumps ship over this guy's comment will just end up jumping ship again from whatever their new ship is, after that company makes some move they see as imperfect in a few months or years. No company is perfect. Proton is at least great.
I'll vouch for Proton. The recent controversy wasn't great but it's also a single negative incident for a company that has otherwise had a pretty stellar track record. I recommend reading his responses in the reddit AMA he did after the incident. I still think he's a fool, but I don't think he's fascist or that there's any reason at all to doubt the privacy, security, or direction of the company, which is both partly open source and regularly audited.
I've been using ProtonMail for probably around 7 years now and it's been great.
I'm punishing them by giving them what was until 10 years ago considered an excellent and standard tip?
Not to mention that servers are, as a general group, extremely opposed to dismantling the tip system as a whole. My complaint wasn't about raised food prices, which the owner would be in control of - it was about raised tipping percentage expectations. I refuse to contribute to the steadily rising expectation of how much a tip should be, and regret my past contributions to that trend.
Back when 15% was considered standard I liked tipping closer to 30%, but as a direct result of the push to try to make 15% seem low I no longer tip more than 15%.
Not really, if something is inspiring rage then it's too hardcore for this community. The sidebar even explicitly says "not enraging"!
Hello again 🙂 I have a good feeling about this one.
infosec.pub##:not(head>title:has-text(/leopard/i)) article.row:has-text(/Trump|Elon|Musk|nazi/i):not(:has-text(/leopard/i))
It's doing basically the same thing as the last one but now instead of targeting an
<a>
tag with the community-link attribute, which was basically just the first way I was able to find of identifying a community last time, it targets the title of the page itself, which seems like it should be a lot more reliable. This does mean using the literalleopardsatemyface-type filter won't work since the title of the page is the community's user-friendly name: "Leopards Ate My Face" in this case. So as before it should block any posts which contain words from the blacklist, unless they also contain words from the whitelist - and now if the title of the page has any words from the whitelist (indicating we're on an allowed community page), it will block nothing at all. The blacklist and whitelist will apply to the post title, community name, and even the submitter's name - anything you can read and even some things you can't read.
I think I may see why. I didn't actually bother to check the main feed before, but it seems like it does have the a.community-link tag the new filter targets in every post - so if a post from leopardsatemyface ever shows up in the main feed, then the filter will think it's on that community page and fail to block any posts. But the filter should work fine so long as no posts from that community are currently on the main feed. This should be the case regardless of which regex is used - if it wasn't just a coincidence earlier I'll have to test around to figure out what happened with that.
It's a process making a good filter, I guess - I may look into a more reliable and narrower way to achieve the desired effect later on
What happened with .*?leopard.*?? It was still filtering Trump posts even from the community page? My own testing showed that variant working - I never actually even tested the leopardsatemyface variant
To be clear, this filter should allow for Trump posts that mention leopards or come from that community to show up on your main feed - that's what's desired here, right?
It also occurs to me that the ? on the .*? isn't necessary - even just .*leopard.* should work as expected
Hey! I'm pretty sure this one will work:
infosec.pub##:not(a.community-link:matches-attr(title=/.*?leopard.*?/i)) article.row:has-text(/Trump|Elon|Musk|nazi/i):not(:has-text(/leopard/i))
Where now we have three filters. If the community name matches the first regex, then nothing at all will be filtered out - and then the other two work the same as before. So any post that matches the blacklist regex will be filtered out unless it also matches the whitelist regex.
I chose to make the first regex /.*?leopard.*?/i because my thinking is you may want to just copy/paste the other whitelist filter there for simplicity, but it might make more sense to do it like the others, like /leopardsatemyface|second community|third community|etc/i. The "title" of a community for the purpose of this filter should be whatever appears after /c/ in the URL, not counting the @lemmy.world (or whatever instance) part.
Actually it seems to be a difference based on our instances - if I look at the community from infosec.pub then the bit of HTML I quoted above with the mod option isn't present, and there's no 'leopard', hidden or explicit, for the whitelist filter to find.
As a note, the (s)? on your leopard isn't needed - just 'leopard' will already match the 'leopard' part of 'leopards'
I don't know how to fix this currently, but I'll test out a bit more later to see if I can find anything that works well
I'm not sure I follow - the filter seems to work as-is to me. It allows posts on both the front page and the [email protected] to bypass the filter for me.
To be clear, it's not only applying to the title row - the article tag it targets contains the entire post as it appears in the post feed, including the title, community name, the person who submitted it, the timestamp, etc. So if anything there contains a filtered or whitelisted word it should trigger the filter.
I wouldn't have necessarily expected the whitelist filter to work directly on the leopards community page, since posts on community feeds don't include the community name, but it works anyways because, it seems, there's a hidden mod option in the HTML with the community name in it: <div class="modal-body text-center align-middle text-body">Are you sure you want to transfer [email protected] to [email protected]?</div>
lemmy.world##article.row:has-text(/word1|word2|word3/i):not(:has-text(/word4|word5|word6/i))
or
lemmy.world##article.row:has-text(/maga/i):not(:has-text(/leopard/i))
will do what you want - it'll block any posts which contain words from the first regex, unless it also has some words from the second regex
At one point I had the very similar filter lemmy.world##.post-listing:has-text(/trump/i), but I wasn't happy with it because it would also remove post content on actual post pages, not just the post feed. That was the whole reason I swapped to the article.row solution instead - posts in the feed have the row class while posts on their own page don't. But it looks like you found an alternate solution to achieve essentially the same thing. Neat!
I have no real interest in filtering out comments, but it's nice to have that option there for people who do.
Where? I see the option to block users, instances, and communities, but not words.
And regardless, I think this method has value because it can be applied to pretty much any website with a bit of tinkering, and it can be turned on and off with a couple of clicks. I actually started out with the ars filter before making one for Lemmy.
I think the key to survival and growth of federated platforms is that the onboarding experience for new users be simple and stable. If a new user has to understand what federation is and how it works, then the system is already failing them. Federation needs to be transparent to the fullest extent possible. There's a lot of value in telling a user "You can sign up on any of these proven-reliable instances, and your choice doesn't overly matter, because they're general-purpose and stable, and you'll still fully interact with users from every other instance either way." There's a lot less value in giving them a 30 minute presentation on federation, then overwhelming them with a list of 500 instances to pick from, half of which are hyper-focused on one topic or run by extremists.
At the same time, if they end up being led to an instance that has issues with stability, absent admins, political extremism at the admin-level, or if that instance is topic- or region-specific, or if that instance has defederated from a huge portion of the fediverse, or if that instance just shuts down and stops existing in a few months... Chances are that user's going to get a bad impression of the platform as a whole, and never come back.
To me it just seems like the instances which don't offer those issues - the general-purpose instances with long-term support plans, experienced teams, and sane admins - will just naturally end up as big instances, as survival of the fittest. And I don't see that as an issue at all.
Like, sure, the fediverse is designed around decentralization, but there's a point where decentralization hurts more than it helps. I don't think anyone would disagree that if we had maximum decentralization, with every single user self-hosting their own instance, that things would be awful for everyone - and I don't think anyone would disagree that the opposite, with 100% of users being on one single instance with no alternatives, would also be undesirable. There's benefit to having consistent user experiences, consistent rules, consistent expectations.
In short, yeah, I think the way forward is having a few flagship general-purpose instances that vacuum up most new users, with a wide plethora of smaller instances that are less general-purpose, or region-specific, or just try out new things with rules and moderation policies.
I do think there should be an extremely simple way (for the end user) to migrate your entire account from one instance to another. Something you could do in just a minute or two.
I have 16 GB of RAM and recently tried running local LLM models. Turns out my RAM is a bigger limiting factor than my GPU.
And, yeah, docker's always taking up 3-4 GB.