We need to make an effort to distinguish “this is a thing for humans” vs “this is a thing for bots” in our naming IMHO. In that respect, “open wiki” is not such a great name. “Agent Wiki” or similar would be better.
Without such a qualifier, “wiki” carries a strong connotation of (usually collaborative) human involvement. That’s literally what it’s famous for.
Thats just my $0.02 on the naming. I definitely think it’s a worthwhile idea. All the best.
Well it's also bad when it's done by highly trained medical experts in a modern hospital as part of gender affirming care.
It's only when performed as part of a pre-medieval ritual in unhygienic conditions by non-professionals in front of a crowd of gawking onlookers that it is totally fine.
I'm old enough to remember the 1980's when people largely adopted a strikingly similar "new religion" that advocated for a free South Africa.
The Free Tibet "religion" was also a huge thing for a while in the 90's.
There are countless other examples. All with varying degrees of success.
The point is, there's nothing new about people being passionate about human rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with... well... whatever "degrowth" is.
This is a key point. I don't know if you can still edit your submission, but I think this would be helpful to mention up front. I'm looking forward to testing this.
>Many countries use census data to target (or even round up and murder) specific groups of people by religion, ethnicity, etc.
You were asked to back up this claim but haven't cited an example of any country currently "using census data" to "round up and murder" people.
Is China currently using census data to do horrible things? Are other countries? Maybe. I have no idea. I wouldn't be all that surprised TBH. You may be correct for all I know.
But that's not the point... The point is that you made a very specific claim and you still haven't provided any specific examples or evidence.
Of course. But the specific claim you made was about many countries currently using census data to "round up and murder" some "specific groups of people by religion, ethnicity, etc."
I'm not arguing that you don't a valid point - broadly speaking. You do.
But you made a very specific claim, and that was what was being questioned. That's all.
It's just a weird choice to make. It's like they are forgoing the back hotkey to make it seem more like a "native" app. But it clearly isn't, and I can't think of any good reason to consciously omit it. Or... since they are likely using a framework (Tauri maybe? I haven't checked) to go out of their way to disable something that is already baked-in.
The Fastmail desktop app is literally a wrapped version of their website but with the added feature of... get this... no back button (or equivalent shortcut).
My 30 years of muscle memory using webmail is made useless by this "app" because some web developer somewhere wants to cosplay as a desktop app developer now.
It's not an oversight either. It's an intentional choice to not have a go-back-to-previous-page keyboard shortcut. A customer support person said they would add it as a "feature request". Gee, thanks.
I used to love Fastmail, but their spam/phishing filtering (and customer service) have been really poor lately. I don't know if AI is helping or hurting them. My anecdotal experience suggests the latter.
As one example, I'm now regularly getting phishing email from "The IRS" that always comes from some random account that has been taken over. The latest one was literally from a hotmail account (and my address is dot ca so I'm clearly not subject to the US government). If they can't detect this kind of half-arsed phishing attempt, then things are pretty bleak.
Their customer service was pretty bad when I tried to discuss it. The rep didn't even acknowledge what I wrote. I won't be renewing unless they get this sorted.
The closest was a "visualization" of a single, unconnected node that can be moved around — all by its lonesome self — on a canvas. For some reason.