According to this I should join GNUSocial.
But that sounds like a site for opinionated pricks who can’t keep their mouths shut.
No thanks.
idunnololz
I am the developer of Summit for Lemmy.
- 0 Posts
- 163 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 13th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Of course being verbose doesn’t mean your writing is good. It’s just that you need to deliberately choose when to be more verbose and when to give no description at all. It’s all about the experience you want to craft. If you write about how mundane a character’s life is, you can write out their day in detail and give your readers the experience of having such a life, that is if that was your goal. It all depends on the experience you want to craft and the story you want to tell.
To put my experience more simply, I did not realize how much of an art writing could be and how little rules there were when you write artistically/creatively.
It’s not. I just wrote the comment because it was relevant to recent events for me.
I started practicing writing non-fiction recently as a hobby. While writing non-fiction, I noticed that being concise 100% of the time is not good. Sometimes I did want to write concisely, other times I did not. When I was reading my writing back, I realized how deliberate you had to be about how much or how little detail you gave. It felt like a lot of rules of English went out the window. 100% grammatical correctness was not necessary if it meant better flow or pacing. Unnecessary details and repetition became tools instead of taboo. The whole experience felt like I was painting with words and as long as I can give the reader the experience I want nothing else mattered.
It really highlighted the contrast between fiction and non-fiction writing. It was an eye-opening experience.
I write concise until i started giving fiction writing a try. Suddenly writing concise was a negative :x (not always obviously but a lot of times I found that I wrote too concise).
What does it mean to “waffle”?
In my case, the repository does not allow pull requests so it’s fine.
From what i understand if you wrote it you can just license the public version via GPL and license the private version that you wrote for your job what ever you want since you own it.
This assumes you wrote the project without company tools and on your free time.
22·22 days agoI’m very sick. - I am bedridden.
I’m sick as fuck. - I am amazing.
Off topic: the onion needs to resume making videos again. Their “news” videos were amazing and most of them are still relevant today even though most of them are 12 years old. Also sex house was hilarious. Please bring these gems back 🙏
In the current world when they are done with a release they have to reconcile their internal trunk (main branch) to the external trunk which is the one that everyone can see. This is because currently google do some development internally while other development is done on the public trunk. This reconciliation process can be annoying due to things like “merge conflicts” (ie. A disagreement between two versions of changes about what the final change should be). By doing all work on the internal trunk it should make this reconciliation process much simpler.
No. The latest changes by Google means all incremental work is now no longer visible to the public until a release is done. For most people and developers this shouldn’t make a difference.
As an example lets say I implemented features A, B and C and then did a release to v2. Before the changes you would see A get added, then B then C and then the release. With Google’s changes you will see nothing for a while and then all of a sudden see A, B, C and the v2 release all at once.
what? oO
It’s on my to-do but the process seems annoying potentially so we’ll see. I just wanted to open source the project so there is at least some progress. I was finding myself making long lists of shit to do before I can open source the project but you know what fk those lists and just open source it now. Ask questions later. :D
Hello I’m the developer here. The reason why the readme is completely unhelpful is simple. I wrote it for myself. It was a readme i wrote for myself on how to do certain things LOL.
Probably the best solution short term is to just like yo the website at the very top: https://summit.idunnololz.com/.
Edit: also in my defense the code repo was open sourced less than 24h ago on a whim and I’ve had a few bugs I’ve been trying to tackle all week:
https://lemmy.world/post/26898510
Its kind of funny but thats how user agents have been for a while. It’s historically just been browsers pretending to be one another.
Time to get downvoted to oblivion.
I see a lot of people questioning why Google would do this and the answer is pretty simple.
Google created a tool a long, long time ago which was meant to make sure traffic from a device was “legit”. This tool is 100% optional and app developers can use it if they would like. However, the tool was easy to bypass, so over the years Google has been making the tool harder and harder to bypass.
This article is just sharing news that Google is once again making this tool harder to bypass.
So why is Google doing this? They are doing this because they don’t want their tool to be bypassable. Their tool is worthless if it can be bypassed.
The tool in question here is the Play Integrity API (previously known as the SafetyNet Attestation API). This is a tool that is offered to app developers that app developers can take advantage of if they want. The selling point of the tool is if you have operation in your app that is critical, you can try to prevent some abuse by verifying that the app is running on a “trusted build of Android” and that the app itself has not been modified from the original. That’s all the tool does.
This isn’t a new API. This isn’t something Google is trying to force app developers to use. No. From Google’s point of view, they are just making sure their tool does it’s job properly.
As for why companies might choose to use this tool, a big reason is because Android is a huge target for fraud. Apple has locked all their stuff down so it is much harder to commit fraud on iOS (not impossible though). Although Apple offers something similar, there is generally less fraud coming from iOS devices vs Android. It’s the double-edged sword of having a more open platform.
Companies are obviously not going to be happy to be the target of fraud so they have to weigh their options. Either they block a small percentage of their users that are possibly legit by implementing Play Integrity API or they risk losing a % of their income to fraud.
Now you can disagree with the tool’s job, I’m not trying to argue whether the tool is good or bad. That is extremely subjective, but hopefully this answers why Google is making this change.