If their intent is to kill you, phoning 911 is a waste of time. You are now alone. Fight for your life. Take down as many nazis as you can.

then it’s time for folks to have an honest talk with themselves about what kind of society they really live in

The greatest! Amerikkkan society! The one they voted for!

EDIT: assuming here that “just make the page simple” is not an option. If the page layout is advanced enough that lacking CSS is a serious instance, you’ll need two versions (or a version and an “export”) anyway.

An option that I strongly don’t recommend but it is doable, is to make the page with tables, then format the tables with display:flex or display:grid and the adequate related properties for the “modernized” view for browsers that support CSS.

Then again, nothing really prevents you from doing things the better way: making two pages and linking from one to the ther with a link like

Click here for a simplified / tabular version

It’s even easier to maintain, in particular if you have a good workflow / build system for composing either page from the data you want to show.

Wasn’t it also known as Jabber back in its fair day? How does that sound in the 2020s, anyway?

UI is not really a problem. Every time I hear complains about a given FOSS client of something “UI” not being “modern” it’s basically complaining “waaa waaa this does not look exactly like Discord, I can’t find a thing that is obviously labelled as a button!” or some such thing. Which is weird because, honestly, all chat apps like Signal, Telegram, Conversation or Gajim do basically have the exact same look: a pane for chatrooms, a pane for current chatroom, and a pane for typing. There: that UI was literally solved in the 90s.

Speaking of 90s, Winamp is from the 90s and the UI is doing quite well, to the point more modern programs intentionally want to look Winampy (eg.: Audacious).

UX however… it has quite a number of issues, such as there not being a practical way to know if all of the client, the server and service you want to use support the features you want, in particular encryption and message archiving.

Even the “beforehand” / “onboarding” UX is annoying: would anyone here be able to point to the “join-lemmy” equivalent of the XMPPverse? Or point to a generalist server with long-term lifetime, kinda like how freenode was (note: was) for IRC?

If I had to venture, I’d say if an important group actually put effort into setting up and servicing long-term XMPP infra in the style and generalism that freenode was, then probably it could gain some good traction. If anything, it could help doing the join between “upgrade people from IRC” and “upgrade people from modern silos”.

“Always” is a long time on the internet, until it isn’t.

What matters is to celebrate the now. Today’s ten thousand. (@jbk@discuss.tchncs.de already linked it for me).

Plex has paywalled my server!

Skill issue tbh.

Platform.

Optional.

It’s on us (all of us).

Apparently.

Posting media.

Fediverse.

Yes.

Good catch. Still, doesn’t make it true either: it’s not such a “fundamental use case” that it would even require the capability. The browser already reports the usable information in the user agent (you rarely even in that 1% need more specificity than “Windows” on “Desktop Intel”).

No. It should be made available with a permission, because not every site out there is going to offer you to download binaries. 1% of the web “”“requiring”“” this does not justify 99% of the web being able to violate that privacy.

Operating system and CPU architecture are useful for sites to serve the correct binaries when a user is downloading an application.

Barely. You could trim down the data to incredibly low granularity (“OS: Windows”, “CPU: Intel Desktop”) and you’d still get the exact same binary as 99% of the people 99% of the time, anyway.

No need to report any sort of even remotely precise value then. Just report “low” or “high”. Also it’s bold of you to assume that just because I am plugged to the wall I want to be served 400 MB of exta javascript and MPEG4 instead of one CSS file and a simple PNG.

One of the biggest reasons websites need to run JS is submitting form data to a server. Like this website.

No. Forms function quite perfectly without JS thanks to action=.

Now whether you want to get “desktop app” fancy with forms and pretend you are a “first-class desktop citizen” that’s a skill issue. But submitting form data, by itself, has not required JS since at least 1979. Maybe earlier.

They can stop telegraphing some of this information, but then the websites won’t render properly (they use this information to display the website properly),

Pretty much none of the information is necessary to ever render a site properly.

OS and CPU architecture? Ireelevant to whether you are sending a JPG or PNG background. Nearly irrelevant to whether you are using a vertical or horizontal screen (and browsers adverstise that info separately anyway, it’s even part of CSS media queries).

Accelerometer and gyroscope? The only reason that could ever be needed for rendering is if the user is moving so incredibly fast that red pixels in their screen would become green due to shifting. And in any time between 2025 and 2999, if you have someone moving that fast, you have worse problems than the site not rendering adequately.

Keyboard layout? If the rendering of a site depends on whether I’m pulsing “g” vs “j” while it loads, then that’s quite stupid anyway because that boldly assumes the app focus is on the page.

Proximity sensor? Again: absolutely useless unless rendering environment moving at incredibly superhigh speed (at which the sensor might be reading data wrong anyway).

Excuse me but !iso8601@lemmy.sdf.org .

Shittiest post of the week in the Fedivere, up there ↑.

If you are going to be this shitty, dismissive and misinformative, you can head back to Twitter.

They literally describe their infra as “Gnome OS”. They spoke loudly in the previews to Gnome 3 against terminal users having the right to customize their terminal. They want every Gnome install to carry and be limited to the “Gnome brand”. They are drunk on the corporate kool-aid and I would surmise it won’t be long before we see Activate your Gnome account" and “GnomePilot”, considering they are also drunk on Microsoft influences.

They are, currently, a net negative for the classial Linux experience.

Not a problem. If I managed a distro, I’d have already dropped Gnome back in, like, 36, in favor of MATE and XFCE anyway.

Meta: “Okay. 0.00001%”.

It could cost Meta 32 billion.

US law: “Best I can do is 15 thousand.”