OpenStars

The definition of pretty much every word these days has been hijacked to mean the exact opposite - like Google lets you "search" for things you "want", and Reddit would "connect" you to "~~humans~~ people", FaceBook will ~~steal all of your data~~ share "news", again from "people", and so on.

I pretty much think of "smart" as now meaning "tactically weaponized to maximize corpo profits" - you know, "for your convenience"!:-P 🤮

It is never enough to feed his voracious appetites. He craves power, and he's trying to win like Elon Musk (ignoring how the latter is nowhere close to "winning").

The users haven't left, that's for sure, but didn't the mods of most of the larger subs (something like 48/50 I thought?) leave? Some unwillingly actually...

But if you mean the enormously long tail of smaller subs, then yeah, that happened, fo sho.

In my experience, anything browser-related tends to get WORSE over the decades, not better, especially as pertains to cross-platform compatibility. HTML5 was a significant leap forward, but countering a trend with inumerably many other smaller steps backwards. The shift from direct HTML to CSS being one huge leap backwards, and nowadays the shift from CSS to JS - even if you view the html sourcecode, and even if you pair that with all of the relevant CSS files, you often still cannot readily find the link between what the dev wrote vs. what ends up happening - and I don't just mean end-users, but the actual teams of devs in the first place!!!

Just to pick one recent example for me, if the bright white background used by many websites (including Google Docs, Sheets, etc. that otherwise offer such great tools to collaborate with people on) literally hurts/strains my eyes, then in the past it was difficult but doable to use something like an Extension to change the background and font colors to my own preferred "dark mode" (or at least swap out the white for cream or some such), while later it got MUCH more difficult to do that with CSS but was still do-able with significantly more work, whereas now with HTML+CSS+JS the task becomes well-neigh impossible across a wide variety of sites.

And even in cases where I use dark mode, including Lemmy (mostly using Firefox browser), people will upload text boxes (from Tumblr or Twitter or whatever) containing that bright white background that hurts all the more when it is the only thing blaring forth from admist the sea of darkness.:-P

Which makes me doubt that the description in the CommonMark tutorial (that also uses a bright shining white background I note, among other things about it) is factually correct - although the more I think about it, perhaps it is me who was wrong. In any case, most browsers choose to render a small "broken-image" icon whenever an image cannot be displayed, which makes it obvious that an image was supposed to be there, without having to look at the sourcecode. Except Firefox that chooses not to, for whatever reason, unless someone specified the abolute height and width for their image (and probably did so using direct HTML, rather than CSS and/or JS?). Since I do not use a screen reader myself, that part I cannot comment on.

Btw that CommonMark page itself seems to advocate for putting nothing inside of the brackets? If you click the 3rd circle at the bottom, it says:

I tested and in Preview mode at least, that works on Lemmy. There is a SHOW HINT (IN ALL-CAPS FOR SOME REASON?) button, relatively obscured by differing from all other buttons on that page in being in black and white (and why is the font size so small in all of the active elements!?), especially in relation to the giant sizes of the buttons themselves, but by default the page seems to be suggesting that it is fine to leave the parts between the brackets empty.

So while I do not know anything at all about CommonMark, at a guess I would surmise that perhaps it is itself still in alpha? Or at most beta, b/c that does not look very polished to me, though that's just imho ofc.

Firefox is open source, but I mean that I would replace it with something else that is open source - as opposed to Chrome, Safari, or Edge that are not - and also better, assuming ofc that something else came close to being better or at least slightly less worse wrt the specific issues that I keep having to deal with when using it.

Anyway, thank you for letting me know about what was supposed to be inside the brackets - I hope I have convinced you that that fact was by no means being made obvious, but with enough community support then as people welcoming noobs into the Fediverse and explain to them one-on-one how things work, hopefully using the accessibility features will catch on more.

Exactly, yeah like I'm not trying to remove myself entirely from "society" - the physical law of entropy means that people need to put in EFFORT to make things happen, and that deserves to be recognized, plus the dev should have a proper means of support to be able to buy food, shelter, etc.

I even tip at restaurants wherever I go. I don't know if I'll be okay in the future - I don't own a home or know my retirement plans, but I don't think a few dollars will make the difference, but it can boost someone else's day and that's really something:-).

I really like Netflix's player, their CC options, and the quality of their streaming service. It's just too bad about the content going all over the place, and THAT part is actually not their fault.

Though I just could not do that for Google Music, when they pay the original artists so extremely little:-(.

I figured that's what the OK Boomer was code for already:-).

But anyway, yeah fuck spez.:-P

Nope. I realized that I didn't even want it anymore so no point. I do pay attention to my current wants now though - gotta find that balance, Zen.

Yeah that's why it isn't even funny, b/c it wouldn't be "next" - they have ALREADY TRIED THAT.

This is the scheme that they are doing AFTER the crypto scam!

Like, at what point do you stop making fun of somebody and just start pitying them instead? (To be clear, so long as we are talking about spez, the correct answer will always be "never":-P)

Yeah but also, he'd rather make 400M in total compensation, so like... if you could just see your way clear to helping out that poor, poor, POOR man, that would be great! :-P

There is a spoiler tag for text, here is an example:

However I believe that it only applies to text inside of something, not images. So in the OP it describes a scenario where one person kills themselves, and I know of no way to mark an "image" like that with any kind of tag.

Except NSFW. And even that will only blur or filter it out if you check that box in your Settings. So the choices are to label just about everything ("this post contains discussion of religious significance", "this post may be sensitive for younger viewers", "this post contains depictions of trauma") either NSFW, or else just not do anything at all.

Also, I know of no way to mark actual text as NSFW, like in a comment reply?

So, there are some options, though not many.

I don't often post news articles, and this is actually my first post at all from this account, so I do welcome feedback in learning how to do it better. However, I am not sure that I understand most of what you are saying. Anyway thank you for sharing the link for others if you think it will help them somehow:-).

First, the linked page says right at the top where the original came from?

I do not know the security considerations there - I would have presumed that was strictly under the control of Ghostarchive, but I do not know if it could be spoofed. Anyway I will defer this topic as another consequence of the spam one that makes you want to not click the link in the first place, rather than an issue on its own.

Second, I can view the entire article (ending with "But investors then will be buying Reddit on a leap of faith, rather than old-fashioned discipline.", then "Follow @AnitaRamaswamy, on X"), so I think whatever issue there might be on your end. Although I did have to hunt around for the "Continue without supporting us" to click on in that horrid & giant half-page advertisement blocker (the modal kind that shades out the entire background until you deal with it - also there's no obvious "X" to close it, and the text is not in the top right, nor bottom right, but in the bottom left so definitely forcing you to pay attention to it, if you want to read the article). I guess that got through whatever process Ghostarchive uses to strip such things away - although at least all the ads are gone (in multiple browsers that I look at this link with), and that's not nothing:-).

Btw I tried the wayback machine internet archive first, but it failed to find the page, so this Ghostarchive was my second attempt, and since it worked I just went with it.

Third, what do you mean have the potential for spam and trickery? Can you point me to something to read more about that?

Anyway I added it to the main body as you suggested. It looks odd like that b/c for some reason that link was both already there (in the quote block), yet refused to show up for some reason, until I added something after it - presumably some internal coding mechanics for this community.

Anyway, send me more to read if you are interested.