The CEOs are not his audience, it's the people watching and reading about this in the news.

"For the love of God!"

"Yes, for the love of God!"

The US left wing has a lot of great ideas and some really really terrible ones that are completely out of the mainstream.

That's probably specific enough, right?

Everyone is having a bad time, in different ways. It's easy to notice things you personally relate to, and equally easy to overlook the many, many things that don't resonate with you.

• Dump on tl;drs
• Subject your readers to a minimally-edited 4000 word rant

You get to pick one.

Malicious custom emoji contained scripts that sent session cookies to the attackers.

And here's where the mods turn to the camera with roguish smirks, because they weren't necessarily bluffing.

You know, I'd love to read things that are written to be read, not something that reads like the storyboard to PCG's video content for this item.

Nope sorry, Youtube gets punished for bad ad practices. You don't get to pretend that the content creator is the victim of the ad-blocking user when YT controls the platform.

Confident doomsaying is always easy and popular on politics threads, and I just don't buy it here. Before the 2022 midterms, commentators were just as confident that the economy (and inflation!) would hand the GOP a huge victory in Congress. Didn't happen.

Biden's done exactly what he said he would, which is to focus on and fight for laws and measures that have a chance of passing the US Congress. Hard to argue with his strategy.

On the economy:

• Consumer prices are up ~15%, not 30 and especially not 50.... The twelve month change as of January 2023 was 6.4%.
• The US has 3 million more jobs than before the pandemic, and 1.7 job openings per unemployed job seeker.

Legislative record:

• A trillion dollar infrastructure deal with bipartisan support
• A federal gun control bill with bipartisan support
• A bill that finally recognizes same-sex and interracial marriage at the federal level. Passed the Senate with 12 Republican "yes" votes.

Hercule Poirot sat in his armchair, eyebrow raised as he read the peculiar Lemmy comment before him. His mustache twitched in amusement at the dramatic flair with which the analysis was presented. He admired the cleverness and relevance to the topic, but couldn't shake a feeling of familiarity, as if he'd encountered a similar style of writing before.

The detective leaned back, his mind busy with the details concerning the case brought to him by an anonymous client. The client had claimed that the comment was generated by an LLM, an algorithmic language model, and sought Poirot's expertise in evaluating the comment's authenticity. It was a clever observation, but Poirot wondered if such a deduction could truly be made based on the content alone.

With a thoughtful stroke of his mustache, Poirot dissected the essence of the comment. He noted the grandiose language, the crafted phrases, and the lack of personal touch. It seemed constructed solely to impress, rather than convey genuine insight.

Poirot's eyes scanned the room, landing on a shelf of books. He remembered a similar style of writing he'd come across in a novel written by a pretentious author. He retrieved the book, finding a passage that matched the tone of the Lemmy comment.

"Ah, mon ami," Poirot muttered, smiling wryly. "It seems our LLM has not proven as original or interesting as they would have us believe."

Poirot focused on the motive behind such an endeavor. Why would someone generate a comment that mimicked an author's style? Perhaps an aspiring writer sought attention or validation.

With a triumphant glint, Poirot concluded that the motive behind the LLM's imitation was simply a lack of creativity. The individual had chosen to emulate a well-known author's style, believing it would garner attention.

"It seems, mon ami, that even in writing, some are tempted to take shortcuts," Poirot mused, shaking his head. "But true brilliance lies not in imitation, but in the unique voice and perspective one brings to the table."

With that, Hercule Poirot closed the book and returned it to its place on the shelf. He had solved the case of the Lemmy comment, revealing it to be an uninspiring endeavor. Poirot hoped that the aspiring writer behind the LLM would find their own voice and path of genuine creativity.

Also, even if I don’t upgrade to v0.18, I have to live in a fediverse that have other instances that WILL, and they might pose a problem with increased spam.

A fork avoids this problem how?

I disagree, once your open source project “sprouts wings” you enter an unspoken power battle. If enough of the community disagrees with something the chance of a successful fork grows. Once a project is forked away, you no longer have any control at all.

Who's writing the code for the fork? If you see them, can you ask them to just submit the PR that the devs said they'll approve?

Despite what you're implying, the devs have no duty to fix admin-reported problems using admin-dictated solutions.

They have already said they would accept a PR adding support for captchas. Someone will undoubtedly do this before long.

Until then, why the urgency? What is it that's preventing you from keeping your instance on 0.17?