Marketing-speak, not saying much at all. Not even a hint in what they “discovered”, what they plan to change, or plan to do. No acknowledgement of previous issues, making me doubt the “working with the incredible global community” as pure marketing-speak.
Roman @rtsisyk revoked Github owner permissions from Alexander @biodranik and Viktor @vng and granted such permissions to the community contributor @pastk. This triggered Github’s automatic “sanctions” check and the whole Github OM organization was automatically archived and admin access was blocked until OM’s appeal was reviewed. It was unknown whether and when Github would review Organic Maps’ appeal and unblock the repositories, so 2 weeks later the project migrated to the self-hosted git.omaps.dev/organicmaps instance, using the free and open source software forge Forgejo.
What the fuck? GitHub blocking the account because of automated security evaluation triggering (probably a good thing) but no review over two weeks (obviously a very bad thing)?
What are you referring to? The reasons to fork, what a fork/forking process is, or what it means for this project?
Contributors disagreed with how the project was run and controlled. They committed to run their own project based on the other project. With more collaborative ownership and governance.
Can you be more specific? What in what they present is bad use of AI?
What makes you think anyone blindly trusted it?
They pointed out how it was almost correct, and the two places they had to correct. Obviously, they verified it.
There and at other times, they talked about similar approaches of generating a starting point rather than “blindly trusting” or anything like that.
Is there new content available for download?
We’ll send the list straight to your inbox.
Please let me read the article before showing me subscription onboarding popups.
Still no idea what they refer to by downloads - what I would even subscribe to.
Blazor allows JavaScript like interactions, allows the developer to write in C# but gets rendered serverside
Blazor can compile .NET to Webassembly and run that in the web-browser.
Probably because it’s much simpler to integrate than Jenkins.
Their own CI system ‘Actions’ is in open alpha.
Honestly, I’m glad they didn’t use Jenkins. Managing it is a convoluted mess. (I don’t have experience with Woodpecker CI nor with Forgejo Actions in particular, though.)
Metapad is a small, fast and completely free text editor for Windows (95/98/NT/XP/Vista/7) with similar features to Microsoft Notepad but with many extra (and rather useful) features. It was designed to completely replace Notepad since it includes all of Notepad’s features and much, much more.
Oh, that’s cool, in only 200 kB! It’s a GUI app, though.
Most of those can be disabled in Visual Studio, though, right?
I think I may have disabled some of those kinds of conveniences/automatisms.
Given the announcement of edit replacing the old 32-bit MS-DOS edit.com with minimal footprint, I was surprised Microsoft considered multi-platform to even be in-scope.
I guess, given it’s Rust, it was simple to say “sure, why not”. But this ticket shows that you automatically have to discuss and handle multi-platform questions that arise.
Are these all YouTube videos?
A note on that would be helpful.
Thank you for sharing your experience. Sounds like it’s like in any other field.
How do you experience good and bad reviews on your games? How much are you checking, looking at, and maybe hurt by reviews and negative reception? I’ve always wondered about impact of those on devs. Especially when I’m reviewing small indie games and they’re subpar / no recommendation.
Or “a novel published as authored by Lena McDonald contains AI prompt”
Good to see an alternative to Anubis - with a reduced or configurable legitimate user impact
https://git.gammaspectra.live/git/go-away/
This tool started as a way to replace Anubis as it was not found as featureful as desired, and the impact was too high.
go-away may not be as straight to configure as Anubis but this was chosen to reduce impact on legitimate users, and offers many more options to dynamically target new waves.
The point is it makes them identifiable. If you block anything not authenticatable, and everything that auths via *.google.com, you are effectively blocking everything from Google.
If you fear they will evade to other domains, you’ll have to use an allow-list.
I’d guess trying anything is fine if you keep a prototype and experimental mindset. You could try a CMS that looks interesting or viable. Maybe that helps getting a better idea of viability with specific products or approaches?
Personally, I’d try/experiment with what I laid out in my last comment - have data files (maybe json or markdown files) and generate and push and pull data from and to that. But that may be because of existing experience and expertise. Not necessarily the best approach for others.
Using a CMS means more integration, which has upsides and downsides.
For those building bots, we propose signing the authority of the target URI, i.e. www.example.com, and a way to retrieve the bot public key in the form of signature-agent, if present, i.e. crawler.search.google.com for Google Search, operator.openai.com for OpenAI Operator, workers.dev for Cloudflare Workers.
They’re proposing the request will include public key source information and request target. Through the public key source, you can verify the origin via source domain name.
Makes me wonder if the main content source would not be better separately, from which you generate the other stuff - e.g. Hugo Markdown page source.
I’m still not sure I grasp the fundamental structure of your data and desired workflows.
Hugo being simple Markdown files for content, if they can not be used as the source of truth, maybe that can be elsewhere, maybe even in Markdown, and you copy to Hugo? Then you’d be less restricted in your form of data and doing other things with separate tooling like sync to other services.
If you already invested into Hugo theming I’d also be hesitant about switching to a CMS/hosted solution. Especially since I suspect there’s no ready solutions for your integrations? I assume you’d have to do the integrations yourself. If that’s the case, my intuition says to better be independent of a CMS (with unknown efforts or how long it will remain useful). Once you’re in a CMS env as a primary source it owns the data and exporting won’t be as easy as if you have the primary source separately in a simpler, independent manner.
You say you have contacts, newsletter, events. You said you have Hugo (yaml), Thunderbird, Google Contacts, CSV.
Is it a matter of synchronizing contacts between them? Or more? Sending the newsletters?
The link is broken. Looks like code was accidentally pasted there.
https://lukasatkinson.de/2025/net-negative-cursor/%20%20%20%20let%20mut%20bytes%20=%20vec![0u8;%20len%20as%20usize];%20%20%20%20buf.read_exact(&mut%20bytes)?%3B++++++++%2F%2F+Sanitize+control+characters+++++let+sanitized_bytes%3A+Vec%3Cu8%3E+=+bytes.into_iter%28%29+++++++++.filter%28%7C&b%7C+b+%3E=+32+%7C%7C+b+%3D%3D+9+%7C%7C+b+%3D%3D+10+%7C%7C+b+%3D%3D+13%29+%2F%2F+Allow+space%2C+tab%2C+newline%2C+carriage+return++++.collect%28%29%3BCleaned up link: https://lukasatkinson.de/2025/net-negative-cursor/