bjorney

The buttons don’t do any tracking just from existing. They only exist to encourage a miniscule number of people to repost your content on social media, and in the event a share comes from that, they may include affiliate info

All the useful information comes from the tracking scripts, which developers are also placing themselves because they are infinitely more useful. They tell you where visitors are coming from, how/if they are converting, everything they are viewing/interacting with on your site, and what the ROI of your ad spend is. In addition to telling you if someone clicked the share button.

Tracking pixels have been decoupled from the “share” buttons for at least 10-15 years

Just loading the “share” icon from the social media website allows them to see that you are reading that specific article

The buttons aren’t necessary for this though. They can do that with a <script> tag, or a hidden 1x1 pixel <img>

OP said it was to notify you when an alarm went off, not when it ran out of batteries.

You seem content to entirely gloss over the issue, which isn’t the pros/cons of a particular writing style, it’s that the maintainer could have said ANY of the things you said, but he didn’t

If I was the maintainer, I too would probably reject the PR because it didn’t remove the gender entirely.

Cool, but that isn’t what happened here. The PR was closed immediately because the maintainer considered using gender neutral pronouns “personal politics” - he had ample opportunity to clarify his stance, or simply comment ‘resubmit in passive voice’, but he didn’t. Clearly the problem wasn’t the active voice, it was the summary of the change, because when that exact same PR was re-submitted much later with a commit message of ‘Fix some minor ESL grammar issues’, it was accepted with no discussion

As an aside, I absolutely disagree with the use of passive voice. It’s more verbose, and harder for the reader to comprehend. It’s why every style guide (APA, Chicago, IEEE, etc) recommends sticking to active voice, especially in the context of ‘doing things’.

If goes against established norms here

What’s the established norm here. All people compiling software by source are male?

he said politically motivated changes aren’t welcome

What’s politically motivated about changing “he” to “they”. As you said, gender doesn’t apply here, so the neutral word is literally preferable.

Yes, I’m sure that PR would have been accepted instead /s

But you’re right, it doesn’t matter at all, the reasonable thing to do would have been for the guy to spend 3 seconds clicking the accept and merge button, or 6 seconds making your change. instead he wrote a comment stating that inclusive language has no place in his project

https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814#issuecomment-830793992

Really?

This screams “women not wanted” to me

it’s literally easier to do on a technical level

I wouldn’t go that far. It’s still trivially easy, and arguably best practice, but it’s certainly more complicated than issuing an in-place update

If the code doesn’t change, the resulting docker image will have the same hash, and a new image won’t be created

https://github.com/jackett/jackett/releases

Jackett is literally just releasing a new version every day

The content of the email is very laissez-faire, e.g. "we legally have to send these ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "

I collect these like pokemon 🙃

You should try scrolling up and looking at what the context of the discussion is. Someone asked what was being subsidized, I answered, you swooped in with a bunch of self righteous off-topic remarks.

Yeah, and the person who ordered the thing from China is getting their shipping cost subsidized by the American taxpayer, while someone who orders something domestically has to pay for 100% of their own shipping. It literally is a subsidy for China

The UN Postal Union sets guidelines for international mail that dictates developing countries shouldn’t have to pay full price to send mail to developed countries. Basically if it costs $30 to ship something from a developing country, they would charge $20 and the destination country would pay for the shortfall (dollar values not real). China was a much smaller economy when this agreement was drafted.

The US renegotiated this agreement with the United postal union in 2019/2020 but there were still come compromises made - while the amount of subsidization is minimal compared to 10 years ago, USPS still allegedly eats some losses on every package from China.

Basically Trump is mad because the deal he personally negotiated 5 years ago wasn’t good enough. Same thing that happened with his trade agreement with Canada

Just because it’s a service doesn’t make the comment you are replying to any less correct. Cancelling inbound chinese shipments is negatively affecting quality of service, NOT revenue

Wonder if that includes Uber eats?

This may be the Canadian in me, but my municipal dump literally has a spot for people to bring these (and other pressurized gas canisters) for safe handling and recycling

I was trying to say the cost savings of packing lunches is not absolute, and is dependent on the opportunity cost a person places on time spent at home cooking.

But I see now that you are just incapable of the critical thought necessary to deduce meaning beyond the concrete text placed in front of your eyes

you’re not going to convince me that eating out for lunch every single day is even remotely comparable in cost to half-decent meal prepping.

I’m trying to point out that the premise is flawed because you are assuming there is no opportunity cost associated with time spent meal prepping at home. If I make $50/hr at work and wish I had more free time at home, then it’s a wash, and I’m just as well off getting subway every day