I did not get it before reading OPs explanation

Is there an issue about this in the GitHub tracker? It could be an unintentional consequence.

While the other answers are funny, the real answer nowadays is either “murder” or “assassination”. There is not really a more specific word for it.

Lemmy, which is pretty known for its opinionated devs

The opinions of the devs have so far (at least as far as I know) not spread into the actual code though.

I feel like you’re moving from moderation to sort of oppressive or authoritarian territory once you’re literally building a social credit system into your software. If you want that, sure use PieFed. I don’t want that, so I won’t.

No just the whole thing. It seems sort of extreme to do all this stuff in the code. This is not something the software should have inbuilt if you ask me.

I mean okay sure, you can disable these things. But the fact that they are enabled out of the box in the software as written is a huge red flag.

… Wow. I mean I already knew there was some questionable stuff with PieFed but this is honestly next level.

Downvote and move on, if the name becomes familiar block them.

Sorry, but you forgot a step:

Downvote and move on, if the name becomes familiar report them and then block them.

Moderators should help so not all users will need to block these bad actors.

Sounds a lot like nihilism, perhaps with some moral relativism mixed in. Not saying that’s bad or good, just trying to put words to what you describe.

Might not be new but it’s not been posted here before :)

Not nearly as readable though

So what do you believe now?

When you remember to do it, how often do you do it? How long do you hold each pose?

not much stopping a corrupt election official

In my country, the election officials are thoroughly watched and from various parties to ensure they keep each other in check. It would be near impossible to sneak in extra ballots (at least, a significant amount of ballots that would actually make a difference). There is a voter register but everyone is on that list, you don’t need to register to vote.

Wtf? Why is this stuff even collected? Aren’t elections supposed to be anonymous?

Perhaps that was exactly the intent, to ensure that only actual humans read the content?

If that’s the case, it has the opposite effect. Humans generally benefit from being able to select text and not just read from an image. It’s of course especially important for blind people.

Meanwhile computers can easily read images via OCR algorithms.

I don’t agree with the comment there. In my mind, the LTS release would not mean anything. It would just be a label on an arbitrary release every couple of years. I feel it could help the ecosystem align on which MSRV to choose, so that you don’t have one crate choosing 1.x, another chooses 1.(x+1) and another chooses 1.(x+5). It would be nice if we just sort of agreed that if you care about your crate being used by somewhat older compilers, use the LTS version and consider the implications if your MSRV go beyond that version.

Of course any crate author is free to completely ignore this and choose whatever MSRV they desire. But perhaps a significant amount of authors would put at least a little effort (but not much) in trying to avoid raising the MSRV above the LTS version, just as authors may try to avoid breaking changes and such. It’s just a nudge, nothing more.

An LTS release scheme, combined with encouraging libraries to maintain MSRV compatibility with LTS releases, could reduce this friction.

This actually sounds like a good idea. Currently crates are choosing their MSRV all over the place. If we just got a bit of alignment by calling every ~17th Rust release (roughly 2 years worth of releases) an “LTS” release, then crates could be encouraged to keep their MSRV compatible with that release.

But we also heard a consistent shape of gaps [in core]: many embedded and safety-critical projects want no_std-friendly building blocks (fixed-size collections, queues) and predictable math primitives, but do not want to rely on “just any” third-party crate at higher integrity levels.

I think some fixed-size collections and stuff like that would be super nice in core. Something with simple, predictable semantics, just like Vec has (i.e. no optimizations for certain usage patterns, like small string optimizations and that sort of stuff). With const generics working for integers, fixed size collections in core shouldn’t even be that hard (it’s certainly been done in many crates already).

I really don’t like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime

I’m sorry to break it to you, but this has been illegal for a long time and it doesn’t need to have anything to do with CSAM.

For instance, drawing certain copyrighted material in certain contexts can be illegal.

To go even further, numbers and maths can be illegal in the right circumstances. For instance, it may be illegal where you live to break the encryption of a certain file, depending on the file and encryption in question (e.g. DRM on copyrighted material). “Breaking the encryption of a file” essentially translates to “doing maths on a number” when you boil it down. That’s how you can end up with the concept of illegal numbers.