I disagree. I don't think it's the world's responsibility to cater to someone's bad browser configuration.
duncesplayed
joined 2 years ago
The big difference between [the WWW] and Hyper-G is Hyper-G's distributed link server. This server keeps track of all the relations (e.g. links) between Hyper-G objects, allowing for automatic maintenance of the information network. For example, when an object gets deleted, the link server will be able to find and delete all links pointing to the object. In contrast, in Gopher and WWW there is no easy way to find out what other documents are pointing to a given document
Dear God that sounds horrible and amazing. I'm glad it didn't catch on, but I really want to see it in action.
Is there a lemmy community for self-hosted GPTs, like LocalLLaMa from reddit?
It is hard. We had Chimera Linux posted here yesterday, which has no GNU code at all. None of the early Linux distributions had package managers. The best I can tell, "pms" (package management system) written for Bogus Linux in 1993 was the earliest, but package management didn't hit the mainstream until at least 1995. Slackware didn't get a package manager until the mid-2000s. But we still all consider them distributions. (Right?)
Down for me in SK
Yes, with some big "if"s. NextCloud can work very well for a large organization if that large organization has a "real" IT department. I use "real" to describe how IT departments used to work 20+ years ago, where someone from IT was expected to be on call 24/7, they built and configured their own software, did daily checks and maintenance, etc. Those sorts of IT departments are rare these days. But if they have the right personnel, it can definitely be done. NextCloud can be set up with hot failovers and fancy stuff like that if you know what you're doing.
It is the ticket. Tickets don't really exist. Even before the Internet and digital technology, what we called a "ticket" (a slip of paper that you showed to get in) was in reality just a receipt/proof of purchase. "Ticket" and "receipt" are 100% synonymous.
I recommend watching his talk on the same subject. I think he's a more engaging public speaker than writer.
I expect it to fair much better than Flash. 808/1020 (79%) of the CVEs reported against flash were for memory errors (buffer overruns and things) that allowed remote code execution. So, assuming the Ruffle developers haven't been using "unsafe", just writing it in Rust immediately removes 80% of the security problems that were with Flash.
Also, many of the security problems with Flash were deliberate (by design). For example, Flash was designed to send your browser fingerprint to advertising sites. Ruffle obviously doesn't do that.
Maybe that's why the new one got renamed to Aptos, ha.
Specifically, this page gives an overview for what kind of information to expect from OSM data