Unfortunately:

However, her veto is only symbolic as the prime minister’s Georgian Dream party has enough members in parliament to override it by holding another vote.

Interesting. I was thinking more of gray area stuff than outright lying, like playing up the importance of facts that support one’s position and downplaying those that don’t.

I read somewhere a while back that it’s supposedly an evolutionary thing. In a social competition for resource allocation, confidently arguing your position regardless of its correctness is more beneficial than admitting you may be wrong.

It’s probably exacerbated by the internet, where the relative anonymity and psychological disconnection further reduces any benefits to admitting to an error.

From the PR comments:

Maintainers MAY merge incorrect patches from other Contributors with the goals of (a) ending fruitless discussions, (b) capturing toxic patches in the historical record, © engaging with the Contributor on improving their patch quality.

I asked around and asked in the C4 specification matrix room.
And the reason is actually simple. If you merge bad code, have a record of proof in git (pull requests aren’t forever it’s only a github/gitlab thing).

So the idea is if you merge bad code you have proof in the git record that there is a bad actor. You can always revert the commit again or fix it. And the record can act as a proof in case the community want to get rid of bad actors.

Hmm, that seems like not such a good look from Ernest. According to google translate:

I know, honestly it was on purpose. I noticed that forks sync changes immediately with /kbin. I wanted to check how they deal with this much-announced community-based qualitative code review. Answer: they can’t cope. Quite an obvious bug was accepted in PR and domerged into the main branch :P It now works properly on the rifle ;)

Hopefully everyone can play nice and work together productively.

It looks like they’re still working out what they want their process to be:

https://github.com/MbinOrg/mbin/pull/34

Seems like your concern is addressed there:

Pull Requests require at least one (1) other maintainer approval before the PR gets merged (built-in peer review process).

The mbin fork happened when kbin development was looking a lot less active. In any case, it’s not necessarily bad to have a diversity of approaches. Due to their differing organizational structures, mbin will likely tend to have more features and more rapid development, but also potentially more bugs, while kbin remains more stable.

Fair enough. Thank you for the transparency and for resolving it quickly.

Yeah, probably. Aside from the fact that Dessalines and Nutomic aren’t actually trustworthy, it’s still a bad idea to blindly follow these kinds of decisions. I’m all for instances curating how they want to, but that requires them to deliberately decide for themselves, not just delegate to an outsider with an entirely different editorial policy.

Would help if it wasn’t paywalled.

I think especially Lemmy.ml should rather focus more on cleaning up their Tankie & moderator issues

As much as I would love to see it, I don’t think the lead devs of lemmy, who own both lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml, are going to ban themselves.

What are you on about? Dessalines said “No, that is full of CSAM.” I would like to know how they came to that conclusion.

or do the .ml admins have a more broad definition of csam?

Their definition seems to be “I don’t like anime”.

OP is lying through their teeth, nothing was found.

Literally any evidence at all beyond “dessalines said so” would be a good start. Hell, even dessalines specifically describing what he saw would be great.

I don’t know whether it qualifies as very strict, but their content policy does prohibit it:

Do not submit content depicting a child (both real and virtual) engaged or involved in explicit sexual activities. A child is defined as a person who is under 18 years old; or a person, regardless of age, who is presented, depicted or portrayed as under 18 years old.

I’m not aware of any enforcement issues, though I only follow their animemes, anime_irl, and meta communities. And of course, dessalines didn’t cite anything specific, just said “No, that is full of CSAM” and locked the thread.

Domain blocking isn’t instance blocking. It’s for if you don’t want to see posts that link to, for example, imgur.com. It’s also broken and will just hide random posts from you.

You’re posting to /c/foss, not /c/freeofchargeandthecodeisavailableforinspection.

You’re mixing up cranks and bigots. Bigots tend to get banned because they’re harmful. Cranks tend to exclude themselves on principle.

The term “crank” is usually used as a pejorative, but cranks can sometimes be beneficial. Richard Stallman is the prototypical example of a Free Software crank. Definitely annoying, but also definitely a net benefit to all of us.

That’d be covered by #4:

The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

There is a clause about redistribution (1), and it expressly specifies that it applies to “aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources”, not single, standalone works.

That is a weird way of wording it. In practice I doubt there are any OSI-approved licenses that prohibit standalone commercial distribution. If there were, you could trivially comply by just including a “hello world” program to make it an aggregate distribution.