I wish I did. :(

I’ve never heard anything about this. In fact, I’ve never heard of overlays on CoMaps generally. My only guess is that maybe the rumor is related to OsmAnd, which does let you create custom overlays given a URL source.

I only use CoMaps on desktop, which is to say not very often, so I’m a lot less familiar with it. Sorry!

You can help too!!

Check out DeFlock, and by all means, come join us on OpenStreetMap. It looks like about 400–500 cameras have been added in the last few days.

If there’s anything I can personally do to help you (yes, you, reading this) get involved with OSM – even just a pep talk – I’ll do whatever I can. There are a million different ways you can help, regardless of if you’re in Paris reading the WikiHow for heisting the Louvre or stranded in the wilderness using your last five minutes of battery to browse Lemmy.

Source: Reasonably longtime user and contributor.

You of all people talking about other people enjoying their echo chamber is goddamn hilarious given the one you moderate.

As though somone blaming Ukraine for “refusing to negotiate peace” has any room to speak on “inconvenient truths”.

Active functioning search engine website “OFFICIAL LAUNCHES” - Google: August 1998 Yandex: 23 September 1997

What on Earth is this link supposed to show? Did you just expect that nobody would check it?

In August 1998, Sun co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim wrote Larry and Sergey a check for $100,000, and Google Inc. was officially born. With this investment, the newly incorporated team made the upgrade from the dorms to their first office: a garage in suburban Menlo Park, California, owned by Susan Wojcicki (employee #16 and former CEO of YouTube). Clunky desktop computers, a ping pong table, and bright blue carpet set the scene for those early days and late nights.

This once again establishes that Google Inc. came about in August 1998, not that Google Search did. Google Search existed in 1997; it was a registered, functioning website with a web search engine.

Edit: Huh, I see it’s a bit more complicated. Google Search was available at google.stanford.edu during 1997. Which is still a functioning domain that uses Google Search to index the web.

Edit 2: Unrelated to this, the fact the first version of the Google logo was created in GIMP is so quaint. TIL

Double nope.

Google was officially launched in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin to market Google Search, [emphasis mine] which has become the most used web-based search engine.

Google Search had already existed since the domain was registered. (EDIT: See comments below. I don’t know that this is true. It seems google.stanford.edu was up as a functioning web search engine in 1997, but this is getting murky.) You’re talking about Google Inc. the company which was created in 1998. Google Search was launched in 1997.

However, by that comparison, it’s vastly less close, as Yandex LLC was first legally registered 14 September 2000.

TL;DR: You were comparing apples to oranges.

Search website:

• Google: 15 September 1997
• Yandex: 23 September 1997

Legally registered company:

• Google Inc.: 1998
• Yandex LLC: 14 September 2000

Edit: And to clarify, I think the sensible metric here, that works in Yandex’s favor by bringing the two within eight days of each other instead of approximately two years, is to use the date their search engine websites launched and were functioning, not when they filed paperwork that said “We’re legally a company now 🥳”.

That’s not true.

• google.com launched 15 September 1997.
• yandex.ru was announced 23 September 1997.

Which makes them hilariously close, but Google still precedes Yandex, as their search engine websites were their first products.

I’ve figured it out: this is part of a poll test to see how well I respond to a politician gaslighting me about the things they’ve said.

Beautiful, well-played. Can I get my ballot now please?

"Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I’m after. You know what I’m saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I’m trying to address.

No, I actually don’t know what you’re saying. Because at first, you said “not permitted”, then in your second comment, you retained that position by saying: “I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.” You’re still, in that second (“previous”) comment, going on about how we can use tests of people’s political understanding to bar them from voting if we’re just clever about it.

Now you’re just claiming it “may have not been the best choice of words”, abandoning the position you took in those two comments and then lambasting me for, like, taking you at your word that what you said is what you meant.

That’s not what “not the best choice of words” means; going from “People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted to vote, IMHO” to “not pushed” and then crying “pedantry” is being comically dishonest to save face. You completely changed positions mid-argument and then got offended that I addressed your first position before you changed it. I’m actually kind of stunned at how brazen this is.

but it’s a single example

No, it isn’t. In fact, the South wasn’t even the first in the US to do this for the express purpose of disenfranchising a minority – more evidence that you aren’t paying sufficient attention to the policy you want implemented. Some decades earlier, Connecticut implemented literacy tests to specifically (and successfully) disenfranchise Irish immigrants.

Even if you ignore that:

1. Jim Crow-era literacy tests happened over a period of 75 years. That’s not “one example”; that’s a bunch of states over the course of nearly a century disenfranchising millions.
2. It’s so blatantly obvious once you examine that “one example”™ why this system fundamentally cannot work and will be abused. If you can’t see that, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to turn you away from the polling station, because you’re clearly unequipped to vote.

People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted to vote, IMHO

Ironically, you’d have to not be paying a certain minimal amount of attention to checks notes middle school US history to not understand how catastrophic this is in practice. Incidentally, that SPLC quiz isn’t even nearly the extent of the questions.

I would bar you from voting for this statement alone on the merits of “paying attention”.

X11 doesn’t provide a poor experience compared to Wayland. If anything, its the other way around, because Wayland has still some missing features and support from all applications that are established standards on X11.

Hard disagree in 2026. On KDE, Wayland is now perfectly stable on my old-ass Nvidia GPU (noting that because it wasn’t nearly stable a few years ago). Wayland to me feels smoother and faster (144 Hz display), fractional scaling exists for high-DPI displays, there’s no screen tearing, and there’s HDR support.

I’ve recently had no problem with things like screen recording, although I can’t speak to screen sharing/remote desktop or accessibility. KDE maintains a list of significant issues.

The only issues I actually have that are regressions from X11 are that 1) picture-in-picture in Firefox doesn’t automatically stay above other windows and 2) session restore doesn’t keep my windows where they were. Given there’s a quick, just slightly annoying, workaround for PiP and given I’m not restoring my session that often (one to maybe a few times per day), these hardly outweigh how much worse X11 feels constantly due to its poor frame presentation.

To that end, I think you’re wrong on “if anything”, because for most typical users, Wayland is going to feel better to use.

Moreover, I imagine finally dropping X11 support will allow KDE more room to improve the Wayland experience.

Otherwise, though, I agree about not downvoting poor Linux experiences.

where linux

Brother, the article is talking about Element Pro.

Well not really, given nothing they said suggested they didn’t read your 6-point excuse to comment on material you haven’t read (I did); you just asserted they didn’t.

“I didn’t read the attempts to explain this”

You’re one to talk. lmao

Removed by mod

Does the CPU have a serial number that’s visible to the system?

“I didn’t read the article that attempts to explain this and explicitly states CPUs don’t have a unique ID.”

South America*