I recently read a complaint about the opposite. Someone deleted their Proton account and their handle was made available 1 year later. They were rightfully angry because the next user would potentially start receiving mail from things like the original user’s bank. The new user could perform password resets on accounts where the original user had not yet changed the email address on file.

Interesting lesson in this story:

Pkg with contraband was intercepted, documented, all needed warrants secured. Pkg is delivered while the house is staked out by LEOs. Sometime after delivery (a day later, iirc) they bust in, find the pkg, and arrest. The pkg was sitting just inside by the door, unopened. Defense argued “my client knows nothing about this unexpected package. Who’s to say the sender wasn’t framing the recipient?” So he obviously got vindicated.

So there’s a game of timing. Recipients need to be given the chance to open the pkg and react by calling the police. Not sure how it goes if you consume it immediately after opening and burn the box. Certainly the wrong move is to open it and let it sit around open.

/cc @snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world

To be clear, the spores are perfectly legal. You can mail order spores that come in saline solution in a syringe without trouble. The businesses selling that are smart enough to not use media mail, which of course would cross a line (fraud). I wonder why someone would risk media mail. Perhaps they thought it would be trusted as such and thus have less scrutiny.

The nuance here is you said “kit”, which suggests everything you need for growth and thus intent. Maybe you’re right on that bit. Buying everything separately would require surveillance to put all that together that you have a kit, in effect.

Thanks! It’s rarely used so trying to find back a post that used it would be hard. Knowing the terminology (spoiler) was half the battle.

What bug report? There’s no bug single report in particular to speak of. I’ve filed hundreds if not thousands of bug reports over the years. The post is a reflection of a subset of those experiences.

When a developer asks a tester to look at a module in the source code, that is not a consequence of a “half assed bug report”. It’s the contrary. When a dev knows a particular module of code is suspect, the bug report served well in giving a detailed idea of what the issue is.

Did I say incomplete? You’ll have to quote where you get that from.

Compare like with like. You can have incomplete code, and you can have incomplete bug reports. Neither are relevant here.

So you did not pay,

And? Of course testers do not pay money. Why would they? Devs do not pay for the tester’s work either. Both developers and testers are volunteers who do not pay the other for their work. On free software projects testers and devs pay with their own labor.

much larger contributions of the developers.

It is not “much larger” for a dev to task the tester to implement the fix. The dev is no more than a manager in this case.

Are you a paying customer?

Testers and bug reporters are not paying customers. They are volunteer CONTRIBUTORS.

If so, I understand completely.

Obviously not.

The dev is a bigger volunteer than you.

Nonsense. Contributors are equals. Exceptionally, devs who demand that testers also fix the software are notably smaller (managers, effectively).

Why?

1. It’s a big database. It would be a poor design to replicate a db of all links in every single client.
2. Synchronization of the db would not be cheap. When Bob says link X has anti-feature Y, that information must then be shared with 10s of thousands of other users.

Perhaps you have a more absolute idea of centralized. With Mastodon votes, they are centralized on each node but of course overall that’s actually decentralized. My bad. I probably shouldn’t have said centralized. I meant more centralized than a client-by-client basis. It’d be early to pin those details down at this point other than to say it’s crazy for each client to maintain a separate copy of that DB.

And how would guarantee the integrity of the ones holding the metrics?

The server is much better equipped than the user for that. The guarantee would be the same guarantee that you have with Mastodon votes. Good enough to be fit for purpose. For any given Mastodon poll everyone sees a subset of votes. But that’s fine. Perfection is not critical here. You wouldn’t want it to decide a general election, but you don’t need that level of integrity.

A lot less effort than having to deal with the different “features” that each website admin decides to run on their own.

That doesn’t make sense. Either one person upgrades their Lemmy server, or thousands of people have to install, configure, and maintain a dozen different browser plugins ported to a variety of different browsers (nearly impossible enough to call impossible). Then every Lemmy client also has to replicate that complexity.

That’s fair enough, but it’s a bit of both (satire and reality). It’s actually a true account (details withheld because I have a bit of respect for the developer in the recent case). This is something that really happens. Not often, but occasionally there are devs & others who expect bug reporters to do a fix. There’s a poor attitude that bug reporters are in some way a beneficiary/consumer and the false idea that the devs are working for the bug reporter. There’s also an assumption that the bug reporter is in some way in need of a fix. When in fact the bug reporter is a volunteer contributor, performing work for the project just like the dev. It’s just as wrong for a dev to demand work a bug reporter work on the code as it is for a bug reporter to demand work from a dev. Everyone gives what they can or wants to. A bug report is not an individual support request. It’s a community bug – one that may or may not even affect the bug reporter.

I mean, does archive.org get away with it, though?

They get blocked by some sites, and some sites have pro-actively opt-out. archive.org respects the opt-outs. AFAICT, archive.org gets away w/archiving non-optout cases where their bot was permitted.

And do I really have to spell out how Google gets away with caching stuff?

You might need to explain why 12ft.io gets away with sharing google’s cache, as Lemmy could theoretically operate the same way.

I’m extremely skeptical fair use could be twisted to our defense in this particular case.

When you say “twisted”, do you mean commentary is not a standard accepted and well-known fair use scenario?

You don’t know what a logical fallacy is. Bob and Alice can disagree about whether the pizza tastes good or bad. There’s no fallacy there, just subjective disagreement.

The browser (more appropriately named: client) indeed needs some of the logic here, but it cannot do the full job I’ve outlined. The metrics need to be centralized. And specifically when you say browser, this imposes an inefficient amount of effort & expertise on the end-user. A dedicated client can make it easy on the user. But it’s an incomplete solution nonetheless.

Someone tasking someone else without paying them is indeed being not where they belong. In the case of the OP, that’s the dev tasking the bug reporter.

You just identified the fallacy yourself.

You’re going to have to name this fallacy you keep talking about because so far you’re not making sense.

Sometimes a paywalled source is the first to report on something. Calling that link a bad link is nonsense.

One man’s bad link is another man’s good link. It’s nonsense to prescribe for everyone one definition of “bad”. What’s bad weather? Rain? I love rain. Stop trying to speak for everyone and impose your idea of “bad” on people.

Many people don’t know all the websites to redirect things through without that, so calling their contribution “bad” just because they posted that link isn’t the greatest.

So because someone might not know their link is bad, it ceases to be bad? Nonsense.

It’s not even like it’s that big an issue, because usually someone else comes along that provides an alt link in the replies,

(emphasis mine) Usually that does not happen.

so saying that this is a social failure is also ridiculous, because both were provided between two people.

This based on the false premise that usually bad links are supplemented by an alternate from someone else.

Also, the notion that you or anyone else is socially filtering non-misinformation news sources from the rest of us, because you don’t see the value in it, or cannot figure out how to bypass the paywall yourself, isn’t all that great either.

(emphasis mine) Every user can define an enshitified site how they want. If you like paywalls, why not have your user-side config give you a personalized favorable presentation of such links?

Just like Greenpeace paves the way for smaller activist groups that can’t stand up to challenges, archive.org would serve in the same way. When archive.org (with ALA backing) wins a case, that’s a win for everyone who would do the same. Lemmy would obviously stay behind on the path archive.org paves and not try to lead.

A link is not a bad link for going to the source. You’ve misunderstood the post and also failed to identify a logical fallacy (even had your understanding been correct).

Whether the link goes to the source or not is irrelevant. I’m calling it a bad link if it goes to a place that’s either enshitified and/or where the content is unreachable (source or not). This is more elaborate than what you’re used to. There’s more than a dozen variables that can make a link bad. Sometimes the mirror is worse than the source (e.g. archive*ph, which is a Cloudflared mirror site).

One man’s bug is another man’s feature. The hair-splitting you attempt here really serves no useful purpose. I’m calling it a bug because input data is overly trusted and inadequately processed. It could be framed as a bug or an enhancement and either way shouldn’t impact the treatment (beyond triage/priority).

if a tester posted something like this as a bug instead of a change request, it would get thrown right into the trash bin

Yikes. Your suggestion that it should impact whether it’s treated at all is absurd. Bug reports and enhancements are generally filed in the same place regardless. If you’re tossing out bugs/enhancements because you think they are mis-marked, instead of fixing the marking, I wouldn’t want you working on any project that affects me or that I work on. That’s terrible. Shame on you.

Side note, do the hash tags do anything on lemmy, or are they just posted here for emphasis?

They have search index relevance in the fediverse. People outside of Lemmy will find the Lemmy post if they search those hashtags (which are ignored by Lemmy itself).

Of course… The reaction shows how seriously wound tight people are. Obviously not much sense of humor in this community.

There are a couple rare cases where devs have tried to coerce me into a fix. Sometimes they outright say they expect the bug reporter to fix it, strangely enough. It never happened in a language that I knew, and weird that bug reporters would be expected to know how to program at all. But it’s far from the norm.

It would need some analysis by legal experts. But consider that archive.org gets away with it. Although archive.org has an opt-out mechanism. So perhaps each Lemmy instance should have an opt-out mechanism, which should push a CAPTCHA in perhaps one of few good uses for CAPTCHAs. Then if Quora wants to opt-out, they have to visit every Lemmy instance, complete the opt-out form, and solve the CAPTCHA. Muahaha!

Note as well how 12ft.io works: it serves you Google’s cache of a site (which is actually what the search index uses). How did Google get a right to keep those caches?

There’s also the #fairUse doctrine. You can quote a work if your commenting on it. Which is what we do in the threadiverse. Though not always – so perhaps the caching should be restricted to threads that have comments.