Since my work involves sensors, I set up a continuous testing setup on a raspberry pi and got its IP whitelisted. I ssh into it when something is annoying to do in the Windows laptop.

AGUCUAGCAUAC

Woah! Congratulations!!! 🥳 🎉

It’s spider season! That’s very normal in September/October. At least in the Netherlands but I imagine it’s similar in the UK.

I didn’t know about Foxes. I very rarely see them.

Ethical DDoS

Thanks!

EDIT: After reading through the Git issue and the other comments in this thread, it is not very clear to me what “combining comments from cross-posts on the post screen” means. I understood it at first to mean that you will pool all comments together and show all of them in all cross-posts, but now I am not so sure. Still, in general terms, I think that mechanisms to share activity with niche communities are good

I would say yes, there are cases in which I have thought that this would be a nice thing to have. Especially when cross-posting to a smaller niche community.

I can think of a few potential small issues. For example, cross-posters can edit the body of the message, so you might in some cases end up with comments that seem out of place as they refer to the content specific to a cross-post. You also have the rare case in which the same post might mean different things in different communities.

But, overall, I see it as beneficial. Quirks can be fine-tuned later on.

AMSTERDAM TRIP: 52.37952717594758, 4.898731163397595 -> 52.373726213381254, 4.8991743688343785 -> 52.37307624236834, 4.892481840346751 -> 52.375235597713356, 4.883881824117286 -> 52.364346142549444, 4.882779439603186 -> 52.358151346039655, 4.868920785661565 -> 52.36032825423474, 4.885688072103288 -> 52.38899110197864, 4.8381014035210965

Wow, that’s some real dedication to moderation. Nice job! 😄

I do take your feedback and other’s seriously. I have looked into it and I also have my concerns about the fit, so I will talk to them.

If there is an example of mod abuse, a user report can lead to me taking direct action without contacting anyone. But a bad fit is not an emergency, we can talk and resolve it that way.

Following that same logic I suppose it’s okay for anti-vaxxers, fruitians, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and conspiracy theorists to also join the team if they dedicate enough effort towards it.

If they have positive/valuable interactions with members of the community, enforce the rules fairly, follow the rules, etc… Yes, I don’t mind.

In this case, the moderator thinking that eating exclusively meat is healthy is not the reason why I think they might not be a good fit to mod that community.

The user should be a commentator not a moderator,

I think so too

backgrounds are important to consider in predicting how they will shape the community

I do not disagree with you on this. When I said:

I am quite receptive to specific reports of specific actions, but I am not going to micro-manage users or mods and make assumptions/predictions about potential future behavior.

I am not saying that the background is not important. I am talking about delegation. The people who create communities and moderate them own them, not me. I (admin level) am not micro-managing the decisions of the community builders and running background checks on users. I respond to reports. In this case, I was responding to the user that tagged me, letting them know that I am alert and ready to respond to reports of mod abuse.

This is a disappointing response that will cause a schism in the community as I don’t want people like RFK Jr. anywhere near positions of power when it comes to health.

Why would it be disappointing? This is the drama community! Schism in the community is what we live for!!

No, but, really. Sorry to disappoint you, and I do appreciate you being attentive to the community and bringing this up.

Sure. I do not mind if people hold views that I disagree with, and I am very appreciative of anyone who chooses to donate some of their time and effort to moderation.

If someone abuses moderation powers to disrupt a local community, let me know and I’ll try to understand the situation, have a chat with them, or possibly remove them if the situation does get out of hand. I am quite receptive to specific reports of specific actions, but I am not going to micro-manage users or mods and make assumptions/predictions about potential future behavior.

To be specific, in the context of moderating a “public health” community…

Acceptable: Mod or user posts often scientific articles discussing some positive relationship between the health in communities and eating meat. The user/mod may be biased to post articles that conform to their belief/opinion. If the content they post is high-quality and relevant to public health, and they do not overload the community with this single topic, then it is not a problem. Users are free to contribute on-topic however they’d like.

Unacceptable: Moderator removes posts about peer-reviewed scientific articles about public health benefits of vegan diets, a reasonable paper pointing out a risk in meat-eating diets, or bans users who make comments arguing against the conclusions or validity of a paper simply because the paper conforms to the mod’s beliefs.

I think this is reasonable.

I bought a National Instrument’s data acquisition card (PCIe-6535B) not knowing that National Instruments is not very Linux-friendly and I was not able to get it working. At least it was a used card so I did not pay to much for it, but I learned my lesson not to assume compatibility.

Once I also used ‘rm -rvf *’ from my home directory while SSH’d into a supercomputer (I made a syntax error when trying to cd into the folder that I actually wanted to delete). I was able to get my data restored from a backup, but sending that e-mail was a bit embarrassing 😆

I think the difference in time is too big. Also, in the talk page’s archive it is stated that the wikipedia was updated because of this meme, and not the other way around. This is from the talk page:

Looking through the archived history of the talk page, I can confirm that the claim on the wiki page is derived from the viral post, and not the other way around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico/Archive_3#Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl

How did I miss that?!

My timeline is incorrect then. Since the post from sassymetischick.bsky predates the wiki edit, it is more likely that the wiki edit was made in response to this meme, and not the other way around. This pretty invalidates what I said above…

I still can’t find any evidence of this being an actual trend, but I no longer have a good guess about the origin.

They have gone from:

Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. … Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise.

To (paraphrasing) “Ahh, well, we don’t have ownership, we just have a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content. We can also process your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Policy… Ah, and, of course, we may change the policy in any way we want and you automatically agree with it by continuing using the service”.

In the past, they used language that included very specific limits on how the data could be used. Now, they make no promises and obfuscate the possibilities by providing ‘examples’ of ways that the data might be used.

If they were serious about privacy, the minimum would be to be transparent and specific about the data use. The lack of specificity makes it abundantly clear that they intend to use the data in ways that users would disapprove.

Cuando quieras! 😁

Yes, but that version is in German. That website also has one in English: https://annas-archive.org/slow_download/24154814bfe1e676d79509c3db1f74a4/0/0

Let’s see…

Woah, interesting. The author is José López Portillo. I thought he shared the name with a former Mexican president, but, nope, the author is a former Mexican president.

The title of the English version is a bit different, but the text appears to be the same. It is a novel, and I can find no mention of the gulf of Mexico or of Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl in this book. To me it looks like a mistake in the citation.

The claim appears to come from this text (citation 1): https://www.scribd.com/document/703207646/Dioses-prehispanicos-de-Mexico-mitos-y-deidades-del-panteon-Fernandez-Adela-1992-Mexico-D-F-Panorama-Editorial-9789683803061-cbee5

Unfortunately, that book does not contain references nor is it stated where this claim comes from.

EDIT: As indepndnt mentioned in a comment below, the OP was posted on February 14, which pre-dates the wikipedia edits. So, my conclusions below about the timeline are not valid.

Hah, sure, let’s investigate 🕵️‍♂️

The term ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ was added as a potential Aztec name to the English wikipedia page on February 15, 2025, by user ‘Mxn’.

The description of the edit is the following:

Frum says the Aztecs had no specific name for the gulf, which is plausible in a practical sense, but Fernández gives a specific religious name and is more of a reliable source on this topic

If we investigate a bit further, we can see that the term Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl is described to be a name for the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ in the spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl

This page was updated to include the description of Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl as the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ in September 16, 2018. I don’t have access to the citation so I don’t know if the citation specifies if this term is still known/used.

If you check the history you will find that the same ‘Mxn’ fixed a typo in this page on February 15, 2025.

So, from this sequence of events it is highly likely that the term ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ was included into the Gulf of Mexico wiki page as a result of the user Mxn performing an active search for Aztec names for the Gulf of Mexico, and finding this connection between the term an the gulf by searching on Wikipedia. This information did not come from recent news about the term being used by natives.

I can find no evidence of native people referring to the gulf of Mexico as ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ more frequently or at all. I can find no mention of this becoming viral in Mexico.

I find it highly unlikely that:

• User Mxn added an obscure Aztec term to the Wiki page two weeks ago

AND

• This same obscure Aztec term coincidentally began being used by Mexican natives, and this trend became popular enough to be noticed by foreign media but not by Mexican media

More likely…

• Mxn actively looked for a term and updated the English wiki
• Someone read the English wiki, thought this would be a nice story, made the meme

And this concludes my little investigation 🧐

Ah, bidding technology has advanced since I sniped Tony Hawk Pro-Skater for the Nintendo 64 on ebay. Why start bidding over a week early, though?