Natanael

It’s mostly a way to improve coordination around code which uses multiple processor cores, so it will improve multitasking performance for some programs

That’s language specific. In math it’s mostly just a parenthesis

As a reset method it’s worse than having nothing

Punycode isn’t unicode. It maps to unicode. Thus only Punycode aware AND enabled AND non-filtering URL renderers will show emoji

Pin API / ABI versions.

If you’re able to track that…

Non commercial means nobody else can sell it, so even if you print one for a friend you can’t legally recoup the costs from them

Crashing and then crashing

If they import contributions to the community edition into the pro edition without license assignment then it’s still a GPL violation

The nearest church choir gets those

You’re such a

I can see it, it’s *******

The post you replied to comes from a different instance than your own, so does my answer. When you’re logging into your instance, the view of their and mine posts are both remote to you.

Sometimes in Mastodon you’ll only see the specific post that you’re opening a link to directly, not other posts before or after. This tries to fix that.

A discoverable non-banned account. Not from “ghost accounts”. If a server creates a massive amount of accounts to use them to vote, you can see that a small server has a disproportionate amount of registered accounts too, which probably will be otherwise inactive. Then you can reject votes from that server.

The very very short TLDR is that anonymization is very hard, but there’s auditable cryptographic voting schemes which preserves anonymity by using anonymous cryptographic commitments and one of a bunch of different techniques to count encrypted votes (homomorphic encryption, threshold encryption, etc).

You could set it up so you know which server each set of votes comes from but not which users on the server. You could also make it prove each vote comes from one real account and that no account voted twice. You could even make use of commitments plus ZKP to prove banned accounts can’t vote!

It sounds complicated because it is complicated. And somewhat inefficient. But it’s possible. And it would be fully encrypted and anonymous voting.

They’re implementing E2E encrypted social stuff. Voting privacy and encryption is linked.

Especially when you have users across multiple servers and both want voting privacy AND being able to deal with vote manipulation. You need stuff like pseudonymous commitments per account attested to by the hosting instance, etc. The only thing that’s simpler but still private is having instances just digitally sign a total vote tally, which also means you can’t detect vote manipulation on other servers at all.

https://peergos.org/

It’s doable with E2E encryption, but lots of social stuff in large groups requires coordination which is incredibly hard to with a server that has no knowledge of what the data is because it can’t index anything, etc.

https://hackertyper.com/

Currently Lemmy is leaking likes via the API even if they only should be available to the user’s host and community host server

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter