2FAS is open source and doesn’t have a cloud presence to store data. You can use it to add 2FA to your other services as well.

The release notes mention why they request each one.

Checkout https://infosec.exchange instead of blocking Threads, the admin made a second instance for people who wanted Threads blocked. Like 40 people migrated, lol

1. “Run around” = Respond to a thread that appeared in my subscriptions.
2. “Must lick Meta’s boots” = Let users decide for themselves to block Meta.

Your hyperbole makes it obvious you have no place in a reasonable debate about this topic.

I love when people conflate rights and ethics. I agree with you that no one has a right to be listed on Fedi Garden. And I still think it’s not nice to pressure admins into taking choice away from users.

“I don’t think it’s nice to federate with a company that has been cited in multiple independent reports of massacres/genocides,”

And I don’t think it’s nice to take the choice away from users. I can block threads all on my own – I don’t need a nanny who doesn’t even cite their sources.

The purpose is to learn how to publish code that cannot be used for forking as open source.

.

I have to obligate the folks to choose whether they want to pay me or help me code.

.

…it was not beneficial to me.

.

…new to gaining good visibility through open source,

Strong names are great, but (sometimes) mentioning the type of variable in the name is redundant.

“Monday”.length is working JavaScript and does equal 6. No print command afaik though.

Yeah. The maintainer said in their blog post they’re looking for a license that lets people read the code but not fork it. Isn’t that just standard American copyright?

Edit: Looks like they went with CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Deed (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International). So not an open source license and one that CC themselves recommends not using for software.

This blog from the maintainer makes it clear they have no interest in open source other than to advertise their own skills

Preparing for a New Beginning for Floorp

Interesting article! I can’t tell from the post, though, is this due to a limitation on bots in Matrix or that no one has invested to make a similar bot for Matrix?

Fun fact, it’s been two different groups of people in charge! Yahoo! was responsible for removing adult content and then sold it to Automattic for pennies on the dollar. Automattic then went through several rounds of different poor moderation before the CEO himself stepped up to share GDPR violating information on Twitter. Now we’re adding AI!

Dude also used a LLM to generate descriptions for the packages he’s serving from his package manager. And of course, it got them wrong, creating a headache for the actual package maintainers

Yeah. I worked for a SaaS company that had two rounds of layoffs because they hired C-suite executives who were better at talking than building software or running product teams.

One was let go in the layoffs – but given a book of clients to start a competing business. The other is still there holding pointless meetings that keep people from getting work done.

There’s no counterpoint in that article. The article says that things should change. At no point did I say I agree with the status quo.

You’re conflating my statement of “this is how you should expect companies to act” with “this is morally right” – which was literally the point of my original post. You’re either deliberately trolling or unable to engage in a respectful conversation. Have a day!

Edit: Oh and CircleCI is a US company, so you once again tried to change the topic to fit your point. Please learn to converse in good faith. Cheers!

“Within the limits of their discretion, directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end,” Strine wrote. “Other interests may be taken into consideration only as a means of promoting stockholder welfare.” – Chief Justice Strine, Delaware’s Supreme Court, 1985’s Revlon v. MacAndrews

It isn’t a shock. Right or wrong, if you call out your boss/board/investors, you should expect to be fired. Corporations are required to protect their shareholders, not make a moral stand. I hope the gentleman here understood that – when you choose to take a moral stand, it isn’t going to be without consequences. It’s one of the reasons we generally admire people who took a stand (and ended up judged “correct” by history).

It’s also disingenuous because they already decline to host sex workers newsletters. So if the censorship angle was true, they’re already censoring.