What I like about the Gadsden flag, as opposed to this one -- according to how I interpret it, anyways -- is that it advocates for the use of one's voice before violence. The main symbol on the Gadsden flag is a timber rattlesnake. If you think about such a rattlesnake in nature, when you get too close to them, or provide them with a reason to feel wary, or uncomfortable they won't immediately attack you, but will instead provide you with an auditory, nonviolent warning. It's only when one ignores their warnings, and continues to harass the snake, or give them a reason to think that they are under immediate threat of harm that they will fight back, and will not hesitate to do so. In all other circumstances, the rattlesnake will mind it's own business, and let you do the very same. I find this behaviour admirable of a creature, and it is, in my opinion, the true ethos of libertarianism. The Canada goose, on the other hand, won't hesitate to harass you. they will routinely attack people just relaxing in a park. They provide little warning to someone that they find threatening, and will often choose to immediately strike out. This is not behaviour that should be emulated, or admired, in my opinion.
dd
?
I've found that the only way to dual boot reliably is to have windows installed on a separate, dedicated drive, and to keep all drives used by Linux air-gapped from the windows drive. Fast start and hibernate must also be disabled within windows to prevent it from putting hardware in an undefined state.
That being said, I haven't actually found any regular use for the windows install in years. mostly just keep it around as a sort of backup failsafe, or just in case there is a game that refuses to work in Linux. 99 times out of 100 it simply just collects dust.
They're viewable on Lemmy too!
I think you need to read up on what the Gadsden flag actually represents -- your information is rather flawed. The Gadsden flag is a historic symbol representing independence, and liberty and it has historical roots that go all the way back to the American revolution. I have no idea why the proud boys, among others -- who are all quite non-libertarian imo -- decided to adopt it. It is indeed rather curious, and also unfortunate for this very reason; the misrepresentation of the symbol is staining it's public image -- as is evident by the existence of this thread, and the degree of harassment, and defacement that it received on the canvas -- and it is quite a shame.
I can forgive simple lacking in education on the topic, but what really baffles me are those who know the true meaning of the Gadsden flag, but still choose to hate it. Why someone would willingly chooose opression over liberty is beyond me.
Regarding what you said about alt-accounts, the rules don't prohibit them. The rules state
Alts are generally ok, as long as you keep a good nature behind it
Considering the fact that I was constantly trying to fend off those that were attempting to deface my picture, I feel that my use of the alt accounts is justified -- if I didn't have them, my single account wouldn't be able to handle it all on its own.
Yeah, I'm starting to agree. I've found that it gets to a point where you essentially just cant keep up with the griefers if you are drawing over virgin pixels. I second the idea of making it the same cooldown for placing pixels for everybody. I don't think theres a way to structure it to always favor defenders. There will always be an edge case where the attackers will have the upperhand.
I'm also starting to think that being able to have multiple pixels queued can also put a defender at a disadvantage. When your actively placing pixels, you are always at 1 pixel with a cooldown, but someone could come along with 6 stored pixels, and just dump them consequtively in a spot giving them a permanent space advantage that you will never be able to recoup if the attackers keep at it.
A couple more ideas popped into my head:
- When placing a pixel on your own pixel, the time delay should be the same as placing over a virgin background. I don't see the point in punishing a user for drawing over their own art.
- Defenders should have a more favorable time delay than attackers. For example, when placing a pixel over someone else's pixel that replaced your previous pixel (defending), the time delay should be short (e.g. the same as when placing over a virgin background), whereas when you place a pixel over someone else's pixel that wasn't preivously the location of one of your own (attacking), you should get the longer time delay (e.g. 1 minute).
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/79cc5d55-2a5f-4cae-a853-b39606717ff4.png?thumbnail=1024&format=webp)
Update
I have been trying to fight off 4 people attacking the picture, and I cannot keep up on my own. I will certainly be willing to keep trying if anyone in this thread tells me that they want to help, but, if not, I cannot continue if these griefers keep at it.
I don't understand how so many people can be so vehemently against the mere idea of freedom, and liberty. Why would one willingly prefer to be oppressed?
---
Original Post
I've plotted out an area at ~(226,206) on the Canvas (it's community can be found at !canvas@toast.ooo) for the Gadsden Flag. I'm using this image as a reference (I drew it by using a scaled down version of this svg that I found as a reference, and drawing over it like a stencil in gimp. It's not amazing, but I think it does the trick.). The reference is placed with a horizontal position of 129, a vertical position of 163, and a width of 117.
- Show the timer for all the succeeding stacked pixels. Currently, you can only see the timer for the first pixel. I propose that the timer should be shown for all of the pixels in the stack, and not only the first.
- A neat feature that r/place had was that you could click on a pixel and see the username of the account that placed it. I propose the same feature.
- Consider creating a permanent canvas. It could be neat to see how a large, permanent canvas evolves over a long period of time.
If any of these suggestions require the modification of underlying code, and are not simple config changes, then I will suggest them upstream -- please let me know.
- Lemmy: Thunder
- Maps: Organic Maps
- Weather: Breezy
- Tuner: Noteworthy Tuner
- Matrix: Element Android (it's got a lot of issues, but, as far as I can tell, it's the best that there currently is)
Of course. My inquiry was out of theoretical curiosity, and not so much anything practicaly useful for security, or privacy.
Would it be possible to at least show the total subscribers from all federated instances?
What's the difference between Owncast, and Peertube's livestreaming function?
The comma usage is grammatically correct, as far as I can tell, but the caps-lock is, indeed, horrendous.
From what I can see, Macrodroid does not appear to be opensource, but thank you for the suggestion.
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.
It's closed source, and it costs money.
As far as I understand it, Forgejo is a soft-fork of Gitea, and, as far as I am aware, Gitea includes both the backend and frontend. But then I came across Codeberg, which appears to state: > Self-Hosting Forgejo, the software that powers Codeberg.
This makes it sound like Forgejo is the backend, and Codeberg is the frontend, but I'm not 100% sure. If so, did Forgejo separate Gitea's UI, and just soft-fork the backend?
I'm not sure how practical/sustainable of a project this would be, but I feel that it could possibly be a useful project in the future if instances begin to purge old content due to storage constaints. The archiving service could store all the data using Object storage to archive it in read only. That way, at least people can still view old content in the possible scenario of rampant data loss across the Fediverse.
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?
I'm not sure that there is much for actual server side support for cross posting just yet, but there is a way, at least on the web UI: if you click the two overlapping squares under you post title, it'll open a new post with a link to the previous post and its content quoted underneath. It feels more like a work around for cross posting, but it does work.
I was referring to Rule 3 of the community:
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy
TL;DR: There is no singular answer to your question, imo. Essentially just run the instance transparently, reliably, and actively, and it will be attractive to people.
I'm not sure that there is one "best way" to grow an instance. An instance is essentially the fundamental governing framework for how the users interract with each other. You structure the rules around how you believe the users on your instance should interact, and those who agree with those rules will be drawn to them. Ideally, for sustainable growth in an instance, you also need reliable server infrastructure -- the instance should be responsive, and have a reliable uptime. An instance's admins must also actively moderate content. An instance with inactive moderators is not sustainable, and will quickly delve into hosting unwanted content on the instance which is undesirable for users.
This post possibly violates Rule 3 of !asklemmy@lemmy.ml.
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?
On Reddit, one frequently runs into posts that are archived, and thus the user cannot interract with them anymore -- motive is stated here. I'm curious if Lemmy would ever do the same.
Can you see if a moderator has removed comments from a thread? Can you see the content of the removed comments? Are moderators able to specify motive for the specific removal?
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?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2452085
> This is, of course, assuming that the instance is not hosted on the same network that the device your account is using is accessing it from.
This is, of course, assuming that the instance is not hosted on the same network that the device your account is using is accessing it from.
I'm aware of Signal's "no log policy", but I'm wondering if such information is visible to the servers at all. I'm assuming "Sealed sender" is what is supposed to protect this information? If so, how effective is it?
EDIT (2023-07-31T22:18:52Z): I have realized that I was not clear in my original intent for this post -- it could be interepereted to mean that I am asking whether or not you could access, for example, Lemmy through the Tor browser. This is not what I meant. What I was more alluding to was if it were possible to create a sort of "hidden fediverse" that was separate from the fediverse over the clearnet. There exitsts, already, Dark Web forums, like Dread, and I wonder if those would benefit more from being federated -- Lemmy seems like a good candidate for this.
Title changes: Added "More specifically, could one make a sort of "Hidden Fediverse"?"
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2357075
> It seems that self hosting, for oneself, a federated service, like Lemmy, would only serve to increase the traffic in the network, and not actually serve the purpose of load balancing between servers. > > As far as I understand it, the way federation is supposed to work is that the servers cache all the content locally to then serve to the people that are registered to that server. In doing so, the servers only have to transmit a minimal amount of data between themselves which lowers the overhead for small servers -- this then means that a small server doesn't get overwhelmed by a ton of people requesting from it. Now, if, instead, you have everyone self hosting their own server, you go right back to having everyone sending a ton of requests to small servers, thereby overwhelming them. It seems that it's really only beneficial to the network if you have, say, hundreds of medium sized servers instead of, say, thousands, of very small servers. While there is the resilience factor, the overhead of the network would be rather overwhelming. > > Perhaps one possibility of fixing this is to use some form of load balancer like IPFS to distribute the requests more evenly, but I am no where even remotely close to being knowledgeable enough in that to say anything definitively.
It seems that self hosting, for oneself, a federated service, like Lemmy, would only serve to increase the traffic in the network, and not actually serve the purpose of load balancing between servers.
As far as I understand it, the way federation is supposed to work is that the servers cache all the content locally to then serve to the people that are registered to that server. In doing so, the servers only have to transmit a minimal amount of data between themselves which lowers the overhead for small servers -- this then means that a small server doesn't get overwhelmed by a ton of people requesting from it. Now, if, instead, you have everyone self hosting their own server, you go right back to having everyone sending a ton of requests to small servers, thereby overwhelming them. It seems that it's really only beneficial to the network if you have, say, hundreds of medium sized servers instead of, say, thousands, of very small servers. While there is the resilience factor, the overhead of the network would be rather overwhelming.
Perhaps one possibility of fixing this is to use some form of load balancer like IPFS to distribute the requests more evenly, but I am no where even remotely close to being knowledgeable enough in that to say anything definitively.
The most common answer I see is something along the lines of "it's the equivalent of liking a post on twitter". It seems that this is not the case, as the Mastodon devs seem rather adamant that they don't want "likes" in Mastodon. Perhaps it's a method of saving posts? Well, that doesn't make sense either, since there is already the ability to "Bookmark" a post to save it.
It really just seems like a "Favorite" is just a bookmark that tells the poster, and the public that you bookmarked the post. And even if this was the reasoning -- which is baffling enough as it is -- it wouldn't make sense since the whole point of boosting something is to tell the public that you like a post.
It really seems like the "Favorite" button has no actual unique purpose. In my honest opinion, Mastodon should just federate "Likes" like normal, and be done with it.