I believe “copyright free” in this case doesn’t mean not protected by copyright, but rather that it was missing attribution, so they could not contact the original creator.

Anything you create is automatically protected by copyright, whether you put a “© copygirl” or something to that effect on it or not. To use someone else’s work, you either need to get permission from the author directly, or the work has to be available under a license that says you’re allowed to (typically comes with some requirements or restrictions). One can also release a work under public domain, but that isn’t legally possible in some countries. There’s also some exceptions like fair use but that’s another thing.

Something else to consider in place of or in addition to a build number could also be using the git commit hash of what you’re building. Though I would only use that for non-stable releases.

For example, stable versions of Zig look like 0.12.1 and then there’s in-development releases like 0.13.0-dev.351+64ef45eb0. It uses semantic versioning where the “pre-release” is dev.351, which includes an incrementing build number, and the “build metadata” is 64ef45eb0, the commit hash it was built from. The latter allows a user to quickly look up the exact commit easily and thus know exactly what they’re using.

Version 5 of a software, device, vehicle or such isn’t necessarily better than version 4, and no official definition of the word “version” require this, either. If I may make another anology: You may pick one of 5 different versions of an outfit to wear, and even though they were labeled in the order they were made, from 1 to 5, none are inherently, objectively better than any other. In the case of UUIDs there are versions that are meant to supercede others, but also simply alternatives for different use-cases. Anyone with access to some up-to-date information can learn what each version’s purpose is.

So that’s where it was hiding, not on the user page itself. Thanks!

I use uBlock Origin + vaft from TwitchAdSolutions, which is currently working pretty well for me. I’ve had some issues before, and every now and then the stream can freeze up when an ad is played. But it’s so much better than having to endure even a second of those mind-rotting ads.

I might be too old-school for this but this video felt like it focused on AI assisted programming and I really don’t give a damn.

Looks like they’ll be harvesting your data if you follow anyone from Threads, maybe even injecting ads. Unsure what happens to the data of people that get followed by a Threads user. A large part of the fediverse is here precisely because they want to escape corporate meddling, data-hoarding, advertising and other anti-user malpractices. There’s a number of people talking about this, here’s a recent post that highlights some of the things from their TOS.

And you can use the with expression to create clones of the object with some properties modified.

Zig hasn’t been mentioned yet, so I’m just going to drop that here.

I personally have enjoyed the meta-programming, the ease of integrating with C libraries, and like that it’s pretty straight-forward to compile.

I guess the core of the disagreement is that one side values safety higher while the other does expression? It could be argued that moderation can take care of anyone stepping over the line. People can be unwelcome creeps regardless of what they’re into, who would be attracted to other dedicated communities. I imagine someone could have the same concerns you do for similar reasons, when it comes to consensual non-consent roleplay. Interestingly enough, this actually is temporarily restricted on lemmynsfw, which could be because an appropriate moderation policy has not yet been agreed upon.

But whether it’s technically legal is exactly what does or doesn’t make it CSAM. “Looking like” is going to be highly subjective, and I don’t understand how the admins of the other instance are supposed to handle reports, other than to verify whether or not it actually is the case or not.

Are petite looking people not supposed to make explicit content while dressing up cute? Should a trans man not share explicit pictures of himself, because he might look like an underage boy? Do we stop at porn that gives the appearance of someone being young? What about incest or ageplay? Like, what if you or someone else was made sufficiently uncomfortable by some other kind of porn? How do you decide what is and isn’t okay? How do you avoid bias? What would you be telling a model when they ask why you removed their content?

Apologies for going on with this when I’m sure you’re already sick of dealing with this. I had just felt like some of the points I brought up (like in my original reply) were entirely overlooked. Putting effort into an (attempted) thought-out reply doesn’t mean I get to receive a response I was hoping for, but I was at least hoping for something you hadn’t already said elsewhere.

The reason I brought up emotion in my reply was because I’ve felt that the lemmynsfw admins have been able to explain their decision quite reasonably and seemed to be open to conversation, wheras Ada was set on one goal and upon finding disagreement, wasn’t in the right mindset to continue a constructive conversation. Which, to be fair, due to the nature of the content, is understandable.

If the content that the Blahaj Lemmy admins are concerned about are limited to certain communities, and part of the issue is the concentration of content in said communities in the first place (at least, as I speculated in my original reply), then I don’t quite understand why blocking these communities only isn’t something that was considered, rather than defederating the entire instance. I do respect Blahaj Lemmy’s decision not to want to host such content. Or is there some technical limitation that I’m not aware of?

I thought we already drew that line: 18 years of age, able to consent, and consenting. For context: I looked at this article where it is said Shauna Rae is 22 years old, however due to a condition her growth was stunted. I don’t think we should tell her not to date or do explicit things with her partner, when she finds one. It’s her body, and she is an adult. Similar to others with growth related conditions, such as dwarfism, or simply people who look petite even after they’ve come of age, who also get thrown under the bus regularly.

Let’s actually go that extra step and pretend she did make sexually explicit content. Now what? It immediately feels very wrong. Put that aside. I’m guessing most people are going to be worried about those with certain urges getting their rocks off…? (Honestly, not sure what to call them here, I was already unfamiliar with the term “CSAM”, so I’ll just leave it at that.) Now there’s content that’s legal and hasn’t harmed a child. That seems … better than the alternative?

I don’t think a person with unhealthy sexual urges gets to choose whether they have these urges or not. Demonizing them to the degree that we are, leads to most of them not being able to get the help they need. If it can’t be done by other means such as therapy, or therapy is not available, an outlet might help. And whether that’s “questionable” but legal porn, roleplaying, or other content or activities involving consenting adults that seems to tick the right boxes, … that’s up to them, not us. Again, miles better than the alternative, even if the immediate reaction is to be disgusted.

It’s an incredibly delicate problem. I’d say the right approach would be to do more scientific studies, but I imagine not many have or will be done because of the societal taboo. It’s also very iffy trying to search for existing research on this matter on the internet, and even if I could find some, I don’t have the expertise to know how scientifically sound it is.

In fact, in writing this and continuously re-reading my comment, I keep feeling like the points I’m making are scarily close to those of an apologist, or worse, someone who wants to normalize the sexualization of minors. I want to make it clear that I’m 100% against this. But I’m also against shaming the bodies of adults, telling them what they can’t and can’t do, because it makes me feel uncomfortable. (And I want to note that this is not meant to be an argument relating to the thread as a whole, as it would not want to tell the admins to host content I hypothesized in this post.)

I think both instance admins have a valid stance on the matter. lemmynsfw appears to take reports very seriously and if necessary does age verification of questionable posts, something that likely takes a lot of time and effort. Blahaj Lemmy doesn’t like the idea of a community that’s dedicated to “adults that look or dress child-like”. While I understand the immediate (and perhaps somewhat reactionary) concern that might raise, is this concern based in fact, or in emotion?

Personally I’m in the camp of “let consenting adults do adult things”, whether that involves fetishes that are typically thought of as gross, dressing up in clothes or doing activities typically associated with younger ages, or simply having a body that appears underage to the average viewer. As the lemmynsfw admin mentioned, such persons have the right to lust and be lusted after, too. That’s why, as a society, we decided to draw the line at 18 years old, right?

I believe the concern is not that such content is not supposed to exist or be shared, but rather that it’s collected within a community. And I think the assumption here is that it makes it easy for “certain people” to find this content. But if it is in fact legal, and well moderated, then is there a problem? I don’t believe there is evidence that seeing such content could change your sexual preferences. On the other hand, saying such communities should not exist could send the wrong message, along the lines of “this is weird and should not exist”, which might be what was meant with “body shaming”.

I’m trying to make sense of the situation here and possibly try to deescalate things, as I do believe lemmynsfw approach to moderation otherwise appears to be very much compatible with Blahaj Lemmy. Is there a potential future where this decision is reconsidered? Would there be some sort of middle-ground that admins from both instances could meet and come to an understanding?