Said people are trusting the intel from the AI. Those who provide that intel possible should shoulder responsibility for its effects, or at least its efficacy.
Shortly after you posted this, it looks like their TLS certs expired. Checking my TLS-RPT bundles reveals 5 failures in the last couple days from Google.
Correction: this was not a case of accidental misgendering. The post refers to someone abusing mod privileges to edit someone's pronouns to "who/cares".
It's a very common Markdown extension supported by PHP-Markdown-Extra, Goldmark, Pandoc, Kramdown, and dozens of others. Several of these have supported it for almost ten years now, with the same syntax.
PHP-Markdown-Extra is the closest thing to a standard with more than GitHub-Flavored-Markdown; several other Markdown engines use its featureset as a baseline for compatibility for anything not present in GFM, even blocking the shipping of new features until after PME agrees on a syntax. So you can think of CommonMark as the lowest common denominator, GFM for an intermediate version, and PHP-Markdown-Extra as something suitable for building more advanced websites.
Goldmark (Hugo) and many Markdown extensions do support description lists. Hugo also supports render hooks which make adding support for attributes, picture elements, etc trivial. And the vast majority of advanced markdown engines support a front matter, typically YAML although Hugo supports TOML and JSON as well.
I'm trying to adopt as much IndieWeb as I can while still remaining a static JS-free site (except for the crappy search results page). Comments are Webmentions.
I test compatibility with a lot more than just mainstream browsers: the Tor Browser's safest mode, various article extractors, NetSurf, Ladybird, w3m, and a dozen other user-agents work well. Accessibility-wise, I'm close to WCAG 2.2 AAA compliance, and have already passed AA; I consider WCAG a starting rather than a stopping point. More on its design is in the "Meta" section.
It has long-form blog articles and short-form notes (microblogs).
My best posts are on the homepage, followed by a bunch of webrings.
Gleason is an influential member of the fediverse because of Soapbox. Soapbox adoption generally makes him more relevant and more popular. This clout amplifies his transmisiac message.
It's similar to JK Rowling getting famous off the Harry Potter franchise and using that clout in a way that causes harm, prompting others to stop promoting her works and thus stop feeding her positive attention. Having read one of those books or having watched one of her movies doesn't make you a transophobe, but promoting her works gives her the means to do harm.
Moreover, the majority of soapbox instances tend to be freeze peach servers that either contain or amplify other harassers. Good soapbox instances tend to be the exception rather than the norm.
QUIC does not require a CA. Self-signed or DANE-backed TLS certificates work fine. Try using cURL built with HTTP/3 support to see for yourself.
Requiring CAs and not implementing support for other anchors of trust is an implementation decision, and is not mandated by the spec. The spec mandates TLS 1.3, not "the version of TLS 1.3 used by these three web browsers". QUIC was designed with non-browser use in mind too; it's for any situation where you want to maintain connection integrity in an unreliable network.
Many worried about what Twitter's changes would mean for under-represented groups. Given this news and Twitter also cutting its accessibility department, I think we can see their new attitude towards minorities isn't particularly friendly.
How's the accessibility of these interfaces? I believe you mentioned an intent to target the Web some time ago, implying that Web interfaces could expose semantics to assistive technologies. Is this still on the roadmap?
I concur on using an adblocker to block modals, cookie notices, dickbars, related articles, author profile pictures, etc. In fact, I never dismiss modals because doing so may imply consent to tracking cookies (you never know these days…). I just block them with a quick cosmetic selector-based filter.
Unless it's a personal site/blog I typically open a site to find information I came for, and close it as soon as that task is done. Anything that makes this take longer than it needs to gets blocked. Sites should strive to stay open for as few seconds/minutes as possible while still giving me the requested information.
Regarding text/image-focused sites that require JS: I generally find sites made by people who haven't figured out how to send text over HTTPS to have low-quality content befitting of their low-quality stacks. I'm all the better for using my adblocker to block them from my search results page forever; it saves me time in the long run.
First off, some of your comments have referred to ad-blocking being wrong due to conflict with existing business models.
Businesses are not entitled to the success of their business models. If a business model fails due to consumer behavior, the business was in the wrong for expecting different behavior.
> I would be fine with ad blockers that only blocked ads, as long as publishers could chose to refuse service to users running ad blockers or ask them to turn their ad blocker off.
Distracting content (most ads), color schemes with bad contrast, bright images on dark pages, etc. are accessibility hazards (particularly cognitive accessibility hazards). Restricting the use of page-alteration software (e.g. color and font alteration, disabling images, and blocking frames) is therefore a discriminatory practice.
In a sibling subthread:
> The part of your analogy where you say people who want burgers don't have any other choice seems not to fit: you can eat other foods which don't have this requirement, just like there are lots of places on the internet where you can exchange money for ad-free content.
The libertarian perspective is a two-way street. Nobody is forcing a person to publish content on the Web. If the "comply with the user's wishes" model of the Web is problematic to a content creator, they don't need to participate in the Web.
I recommend users who link against OpenSSL to enable padding to multiples of at least 1024 bytes if they want to impede traffic analysis. The Nginx devs aren't interested in implementing random record padding or supporting the feature in BoringSSL/LibreSSL, unfortunately.
Can Caddy leverage either form of padding? If so, I might need to give it another look!
And regarding modules: most are written in C and dynamically loaded as shared objects or statically linked during compile-time. A bunch are listed at https://www.nginx.com/resources/wiki/modules/. The ones for live streaming and VODs are the hardest to replace, IMO. IPScrub was my favorite but I haven't used it for a few years.
Personally, I think live streaming and ffmpeg-based encoding are specialized enough to warrant a specialized server (like a custom Nginx build) and are a bit out of scope for a general-purpose user-friendly server like Caddy.
I generally recommend Caddy over Nginx, but Nginx does still have certain advantages:
- Nginx supports OpenSSL commands that enable features like TLS record padding.
- Performance: better latency and scalability to more connections. Not everyone uses a CDN for static/cached content
- Kernel-accelerated TLS offload on Linux and FreeBSD
- Many existing modules provide unique functionality. The many modules for live video streaming and image processing are good examples.
- An ecosystem of patches with features like HPACK static dictionaries, dynamic TLS record sizing, etce
> …has terrible language integration.
Generally, "language integration" isn't really a use-case for vanilla Nginx; it's a use-case for Nginx Unit, an Nginx language-specific module, or OpenResty. I personally prefer the reverse-proxy route since it lets me use whatever language I want regardless of server support: Go, Rust, Python, C, etc.
If none of these are that important then I absolutely would not recommend Nginx; Caddy would be the better tool.
> People aren't writing internet scale software in lua for a reason.
I'd include Itch.io, much of Taobao, and some of the most popular API gateways (including Kong) in the category of "Internet-scale software written by 'people'".
I tried it out on my own site, and through trial-and-error I found that Chromium does in fact treat the "max-bpp" Document-Policy directives as bytes-per-pixel.
I could be wrong; my memory has faded. Please correct me if this is the case.