TootSweet

The kiosk, but only if it's new and hasn't been handled by the greasy-fingered hordes for years already.

I'm pretty sure latte.isnot.coffe admins are also tankies. Should've done my research before I signed up. Maybe some day account migration will be a thing. ('Cuz I'd like to keep my post history if I were to jump to a different instance.)

How did you get it to play sound when my phone is muted? How!?

Plus the iceberg lettuce. I'm not saying it's unhealthy (unless it's covered in pesticides.) It's just nutritionally vacuous. Just as healthy with as without.

I think she's ripping the still-beating heart out of the cameraman with her telekinesis.

I believe in "to each according to need," (or to put it into the language of a "right," the right to fulfillment of your needs.) but I don't trust "countries" to do that. There's a long history of governments saying they're doing that while perpetuating the worst atrocities.

I interpreted it the same way devexxis did, but on rereading, I think you're right.

Wow. I couldn't possibly be any more your opposite in this regard. I try very hard not to run proprietary software. For safety reasons. And when I do run proprietary software, I do my best to sandbox it. I don't let my Nintendo Switch talk to my home network often. I hacked my robotic vacuum cleaner not to phone home. I do my (U.S.) taxes on stupid paper because there aren't pure-FOSS options for filing electronically.

"Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." - Linus Torvalds

Open Source software is (caveat, qualifier) safer than proprietary software. (And I'll get to the caveats and qualifiers later.)

Software exploits are possible only because of mistakes, oversights, negligence, or mistaken assumptions on the part of the developer of user of the code. More eyes on the code help suss out those mistakes, oversights, negligence, and mistaken assumptions, creating a more secure (and bug-free) piece of software.

Besides that, companies that make proprietary software have incentives to put evil things into said proprietary software that endanger you to enrich them. (For instance, phone apps collecting personal data about you only to sell to advertising companies.) Companies that contribute to open source software also have incentives to put evil things into open source software, but when everyone has access to view the source code, it's a lot harder to get away with that. (Not to say it's never happened that purposeful vulnerabilities have gotten into open source software, but it's a lot easier to catch such vulnerabilities in open source software than proprietary software.)

As others have said, the way algorithms related to security are designed, the security doesn't depend on keeping the algorithm secret. (But rather, keeping a "key" -- a bit of data generated by the algorithm -- secret.)

Now, caveats.

I do believe there is some extent to which open source software is trusted to be safe even when the "chain of custody" is questionable. There are ways to ensure integrity, but there are repositories such as NPM that carry large amounts of open source software that is used by huge numbers of people on a regular basis that don't utilize sufficient integrity checking techniques. As a result, there have been a few cases where malicious code has sneaked into NPM and then into codebases.

There are also cases where governments have gotten malicious code into open source projects. (Though, I'd expect that's more of a problem with proprietary software, not less.)

Actually, the answer turns out to be pretty interesting.

The short version is that what colors are considered "distinct" are heavily influenced by culture and Newton, from whom we get ROYGBIV, came from a culture which valued the dye called "indego."

Edit: It also seems Newton thought the number 7 had cosmic significance and thought there ought to be 7 colors.

More info in this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7WT6TLy8s

Let's see if we can get them to to sixth largest!

Yeah. I'm definitely for some pretty seamless integration. Probably in the optimal case:

• The wikis would be hosted on the same domain as the Lemmy servers.
• Any account you had on the associated Lemmy server would automatically exist to the wiki as well.
• If you were logged into Lemmy, you'd also be logged into the wiki.
• Only mods would be able to enable wikis but the process of doing so would be trivially easy.
• I'd personally say that it makes the most sense to just have the mods link the associated wiki from the sidebar rather than creating new special interface features to add a link outside the sidebar or whatever. (Unless some kind of plugin infrastructure that would allow that already exists.)

But all that can be done without putting any wiki-specific code into the Lemmy or Lemmy-UI source repositories, which I think is preferable for the same reason you wouldn't add flight simulator code to a spreadsheet application. (Ok, maybe a bad example, but you get my point.)

Edit: And I'll admit there are both upsides and downsides to my approach here. One downside would be that some Lemmy instances would offer attached wikis and others wouldn't. It's possible it also just wouldn't catch on at all and nobody would enable attached wikis as a feature if it was a whole separate step to setting up "Lemmy".