Seems like lemmy.world has the opengraph/teaser stuff disabled? When I open the post on lemmyworld, without an account, it doesn’t have a teaser at all.

If you open this comment source link it may very well show.

The interoperability of ActivityPub is nice, but all these differences make it confusing and cumbersome too.

I hate being hinted and asked to click on the link, so I save you a click:

Are you using a different client? Without teaser texts? The Lemmy website mentions Nova in the teaser.

Oh no, they already have a Farewell Collection! /s

I’m not sure if it was in that article or in another comment section, but someone said

a small group of people will fight to control the narrative so they can spin it any which way they want.

Your source for your broad categorization and claims seems incredibly weak. “Someone said, somewhere, I’m not sure where I read it, though.”

Wikipedia tracks anonymous contributions, too. You could check the Article and Article Discussion pages histories before making these claims, and before concluding from one comment that Wikipedia has the same systematic issues like Reddit or other closed-group moderated platforms.

As far as I see it, Wikipedia has a different depth and transparency on guidelines, requirements, open discussion, and actions. It has a lot of additional safeguards compared to something like Reddit. Admins are elected, not “first-come”.

What I find much more plausible than “they didn’t want to accept an anonymous contribution” is that the anonymous contributor may not have adequately sourced their claims and contributions. Even if they did, I find it much more likely that it may have been removed, then a discussion was done in the page discussion, and then it was added back.

Of course, instead of theorizing what happened in that case I could have checked Wikipedia too. But I also want to make a point about my general and systematic expectation of how Wikipedia works, which other platforms do not have.

Mozilla integrated parts of Servo and concluded it as a Mozilla project, passing governance to the Linux Foundation Europe. You call that letting it rot?

What makes you say so?

They saw potential in Rust for safety and technical guarantees, and started the Servo project. Eventually, they integrated some things into Gecko, and then concluded the Servo project.

What makes you think they don’t want Gecko anymore? What makes you say they started Servo when it’s a partially integrated and, more importantly, a concluded project?

I suggest we create a new international coalition called NUS for Not US and present a united front of all-or-nothing, so that Trump can’t put pressure on individual countries anymore.

Were you able to sign up and give feedback without verifying your identity first?

The stake will be paid for through $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded to Intel under the 2022 U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, plus $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of a program called Secure Enclave. It’s a formerly classified initiative that Congress appropriated funds for in 2024 after lobbying by Intel, Politico reported in 2024.

Including $2.2 billion in CHIPs grants Intel has received so far, the total investment is $11.1 billion, or 9.9%. Intel is valued at about $108 billion on the stock market.

Nice

(linked from the article about a Netflix series upscale)

This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth. It is then converted to electricity and delivered to the energy grid or batteries for storage.

How is the energy transmitted to Earth?

I found the intro hook intriguing, but the reporting starts with a lot of media clips and other run-ups, which eventually made me leave.

It’s great they put in so much effort into genuine, on-site reporting, but the already long video report feels even more bloated/filled this way.

I have to wonder if the DMCA was due to the news clips. While they may be fair use for contextualized reporting, I didn’t find them particularly valuable, and DMCA issues could have been avoided without them or without using so many of them.

No, as per the article, their argumentation is that they are not web crawlers generating an index, they are user-action-triggered agents working live for the user.

Why did you link an image instead of the video?

for example, “have seen revenues jump from zero to $20 million in a year,” he said. “It’s because they pick one pain point, execute well, and partner smartly with companies who use their tools,” he added.

Sounds like they were able to sell their AI services. That doesn’t really measure AI success, only product market success.

Celebrating a revenue jump from zero, presumably because they did not exist before, is… quite surprising. It’s not like they became more efficient thanks to AI.

I’m confused by the article suddenly changing to seemingly other semi-related topics and pieces.

I was gifted crypto from two crypto projects for my (crypto-unrelated) open source work. It was a baffling hassle to pay out. Over multiple conversions and significant gas fees and waiting for hours for a transaction and having to juggle wallets and exchange platform service… yeah. From my experience, cryptocurrencies are not feasible for normal, regular payments.

There’s no better payment infrastructure for USDT than for €. It adds additional concerns and technical complexities.

DNS is a listing of address resolution. Ignoring/Dropping records is not modifying existing entries/mappings. That’s a different thing in my eyes.

If the ruling were to declare published content must not be modified, I think there’s multiple levels to it too, and it may dictate to any degree between them.

1. Interpretative tools (like a screen reader would be, or forced high contrast mode), which may be classified accessibility too
2. CSS hacks that change display style but not what is shown (for example forcing a dark mode, reduced spacing, or bigger font sizes)
3. CSS hacks or ad blockers that modify or hide content (block ads that would otherwise be rendered)

The biggest danger for a “copyright violation” would be the last point. Given that styling is part of the website though, “injection with intent to modify” may very well be part of it too, though.

It certainly would go directly against the open web with all of its advantages.

/edit: Comment by manxu, who read the ruling, is a lot less alarming.

Perplexity argues that a platform’s inability to differentiate between helpful AI assistants and harmful bots causes misclassification of legitimate web traffic.

So, I assume Perplexity uses appropriate identifiable user-agent headers, to allow hosters to decide whether to serve them one way or another?

I’m working in a small software development company. We’re exploring AI. It’s not being pushed without foundation.

There’s no need to commit when you don’t even know what you’re committing to, disregarding cost and risk. It just doesn’t make sense. We should expect better from CEOs than emotionally following a fear of missing out without a reasonable assessment.