copygirl

Version 5 of a software, device, vehicle or such isn't necessarily better than version 4, and no official definition of the word "version" require this, either. If I may make another anology: You may pick one of 5 different versions of an outfit to wear, and even though they were labeled in the order they were made, from 1 to 5, none are inherently, objectively better than any other. In the case of UUIDs there are versions that are meant to supercede others, but also simply alternatives for different use-cases. Anyone with access to some up-to-date information can learn what each version's purpose is.

except for visual studio code

But also:

• Telemetry everywhere
• Not permitted to use the official marketplace with OSS builds
• Not able to use certain extensions (like C# debugger) with OSS builds

Though I've been very happy about the direction .NET and C# have been going, especially the licensing.

1. There is the --download-sections option. Looking at it, you might want to use --download-sections "*0:00-1:00".
2. I briefly checked with --list-thumbnails and it doesn't look like YouTube offers any square ones, so I would look into using ImageMagick to edit the image with a command. I doubt yt-dlp allows you to do any sort of image manipulation out of the box.

For the unfamiliar (like me), Xenia is chilling with Kiki the Cyber Squirel, the mascot of the FOSS painting program Krita.

This is potentially dangerous, as it encourages dealing with text as an array of chars. But graphemes in Unicode, which represent a single symbol in a writing system (such as "H", "心", or "💚"), can take up multiple chars in a string. The linked approaches only work if you can guarantee that your string only contains ASCII. See also: The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Must Know About Unicode in 2023 (Still No Excuses!)

A friend gifted me a laptop with US layout. One day I figured I really needed those German characters. I did the same as @okiloki@feddit.de, except I ended up picking the US-International layout, and removed the old layout since I didn't need it anymore.

I think both instance admins have a valid stance on the matter. lemmynsfw appears to take reports very seriously and if necessary does age verification of questionable posts, something that likely takes a lot of time and effort. Blahaj Lemmy doesn't like the idea of a community that's dedicated to "adults that look or dress child-like". While I understand the immediate (and perhaps somewhat reactionary) concern that might raise, is this concern based in fact, or in emotion?

Personally I'm in the camp of "let consenting adults do adult things", whether that involves fetishes that are typically thought of as gross, dressing up in clothes or doing activities typically associated with younger ages, or simply having a body that appears underage to the average viewer. As the lemmynsfw admin mentioned, such persons have the right to lust and be lusted after, too. That's why, as a society, we decided to draw the line at 18 years old, right?

I believe the concern is not that such content is not supposed to exist or be shared, but rather that it's collected within a community. And I think the assumption here is that it makes it easy for "certain people" to find this content. But if it is in fact legal, and well moderated, then is there a problem? I don't believe there is evidence that seeing such content could change your sexual preferences. On the other hand, saying such communities should not exist could send the wrong message, along the lines of "this is weird and should not exist", which might be what was meant with "body shaming".

I'm trying to make sense of the situation here and possibly try to deescalate things, as I do believe lemmynsfw approach to moderation otherwise appears to be very much compatible with Blahaj Lemmy. Is there a potential future where this decision is reconsidered? Would there be some sort of middle-ground that admins from both instances could meet and come to an understanding?

It's a lot more legally dubious for them if you defederate. If your instance willingly connects and shares data out of their own volition, it's like that instance giving permission. If an instance blocks communication via the ActivityPub protocol outright, what are the legal grounds for Meta/Facebook to be able to freely access that information? Even if it's posted publicly to view.

As an example. I can have my own website and post some info there, write articles, have contact information. People can view it. Companies can index this information and make it available to search. But I'm guessing it's not legal (or at least less so) to be collecting that information to process and sell. Companies can do that so easily because you agree to it in their terms of service.

(But hey, IANAL.)