This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
undefined stefania maurizi ha condiviso questa discussione
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@aeva Oh in that case it's where your pita bread spins and stands up on its own
-
Una delle ragioni per cui amo la mia libreria (di quartiere)
-
@grishka @julian I think the idea is to use a thread collection so you can get the whole reply tree to a post without having to walk `inReplyTo` links up and `replies` collections down.
-
@julian do you mean fetching the `replies` collections to make threads as complete as possible? I've been doing that for a long time already :D
Never seen those FEPs, will take a look
-
grishka@mastodon.social would you be interested in implementing conversational contexts/backfill (aka 7888 + f228)?
-
scottjenson@social.coop true, although I will say from experience that there are levels to how much people are willing to customize their instance.
Speaking from 10+ years of NodeBB (which didn't federate for nearly all of it, so keep that in mind), admins are able to, in order of difficulty:
pick a bootswatch skin (this instance I am on uses the "Brite" bootswatch skin) drop in any amount of CSS to override anything drop in any amount of SCSS if that's your jam drop in any amount of javascript that is run after everything else is done change/override bootstrap's variables.scss (this instance I am on overrides the primary colour from a bright green to the ActivityPub pink) create your own customized theme to change absolutely everything about the site including templates, js, css)Those first two are the biggest ones due to their ease of adoption, and overlaying additional CSS doesn't require too much engineering effort, although I am speaking in hindsight.
Also, you'd be surprised what people can do if given a textbox and told to write their own CSS. ha!
-
-
@Paradox the question you should be asking is: if you can prove you were tricked into etc, what will your sentence be now?
(Depends on the judicial system, but for example fraud will generally require intent, and if you can prove you were tricked, then there was no intent from you and it won't be fraud.)My point is that before arguing how the system should behave, it would be better to be more informed about (1) how it's already supposed to work and (2) when it doesn't, why?
