I will add, as a disclaimer, that I have not checked if that as Nutomic highlighted below, there are conditions (password change, etc) under which any or all JWT (user, instance, etc) become invalid. So do audit the code if this is something that concerns you. As far as I am concerned, I treat the JWTs as extra-sensitive information, and store them only on machines I own.
Edit: correct information in the light of Nutomic's comments.
And they must be local rather than remote (cloud).
Also, always prioritise a common format served through filters (for example having all your data in postgres and minio, and serve that on demand as ICS, XML, etc) so that you don't need to duplicate or lose data due to formats.
It would seem that the end user has no idea what "cut" means. I never have to "go back to the original directory to delete the originals". That is what "cut" is for.
Besides, as other comments pointed out, one can make a multiple selection, and then, in conjunction with "cut", it will work exactly like the feature described at the end. 🤷♂️
Thanks for showing me tinyeye 🙏. I didn't know of it. All I can tell is that google image search, duckduckgo and all the other image search engines I tried failed at finding it.
I know of the spoiler feature, however it doesn't work on all clients.
For example, the client I use wants the spoiler to be:
!spoiler!<
And it doesn't work with images. At all.
With the Lemmy syntax, on my client, I can immediately (without clicking/tapping) see ':::', followed by: spoiler Got it! "NSFW" test, the image, and finally, ':::'. (It is without the single quotes, I added them for unambiguity).
Point is, aside from having a convention (like having "NSFW" anywhere in the image alternate text) where images are tagged NSFW, or a proper spoiler tag that is easy to parse and works everywhere (this one doesn't), I don't see how this can work. And I honestly think we should be able to tag images as both NSFW and spoiler independently.
BTW better for somebody to click than get fired for an inline display image of some tig ole bitties.
IMHO it would be pretty dishonest to fire someone over mild nudity while totally being OK for your employees to do other personal things at work. However, I will concede that our society is extremely prude, and people will complain about kids being able to see that (kids, however, will not, and will gladly go to pron sites and happily click "I am over 18"...)
And mod removed your image in the meantime 😇
Yeah, the modlog says "NSFW. Next time use the spoiler tag or post a link."
That is ignoring that a spoiler tag will simply not work on most clients... But sure, let's pretend.
Edit: now there's a spoiler. Let's see if it works... 🤞
Edit: oh, you mean as the title of a link. Yeah nah, I don't believe anyone's gonna open it. Links often open outside of the client, people will not want that. However, I changed the image's text, so now it says "NSFW", and also, maybe I should open a feature request for lemmy so we can tag images as NSFW in comments as well.
AN UNCOMMITTED MOVEMENT WILL NOT BE CALLED FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION, REGARDLESS OF THE RESULT OF THE PRIMARY.
First off, it better not. If you think "Genocide Joe" is bad for palestine, try "Bloodbath drumpf"... I mean, maybe it is better to die violently and fast than slowly? But either way, whatever the pro-palestine movement is after, the democrats are their best choice, and by far. The alternative not only got stronger ties with the netanyahu government, but also a much lower overall IQ, zero consideration for legislation, international agreements, humanitarian matters, and democracy in general (which they have literally confused with the opposition party, for decades by now). You might not like biden, but from a humanitarian PoV, he is orders of magnitude better than anyone the GoP might select (and especially more so if it is drumpf).
Second off, I get that people are trying to "send a message", but if it changes nothing aside from vanity numbers, it will have absolutely zero impact. The impact was "voting for Bernie", and that is about 8 years too late now.
AFAIU - but that is a veeeeeery "skimmed" take on the issue, so please check what I wrote before taking it at face value:
There were legitimate concerns about tiktok (hugely popular platform distributed as a "black box", with very concerning permissions and behaviours, and owned by a foreign actor - tiktok is "unavailable" domestically - that demonstrably uses technology in an extremely dystopian way on their own population), so there was quite a lot of public pressure to "do something about it", and of course politicians jumped on the opportunity to make a (very) broadly fitting legislation targeting it, coincidentally also having utterly damaging and immensely concerning side-effects for the end users privacy and sovereignty of all applications.
Following that, some of the people got (rightly) concerned about the legislation's effect on their rights and privacy, but the vast majority just saw that their digital crack cocaine was being attacked, and started whining with arguments of varying relevance. At the end of the day, though, a given platform is irrelevant. What is, is the abilities given to the users, and the possibilities that those create. But now, we have a deeply concerning platform, still being immensely popular and uncontrolled; a totally unfitting legislation with incredibly wild "side effects"; and a growing, misguided popular movement to "save tiktok" that will only make a legitimate attempt at mitigating it much harder. Yay.
Can anyone get me up to speed what claims the bill gave to justify TikTok must be either sold or remove from app stores?
The justification is "America’s foremost adversary has no business controlling a dominant media platform in the United States".
Which is IMHO fair. It isn't like the CCP would let American corporations, let alone government controlled ones, run services in China, let alone psychiatrically alienate their citizens, instigate discord and radicalization, potentially manipulate the public opinion, have the capacity to covertly do psyops, and actively, aggressively collect any and all data.
The potential problem I see (and probably what concerns most of the privacy advocates out there) however, is that while the bill is aiming at tiktok in particular (fine), it also targets any "foreign adversary". Meaning that, AFAIU (but IANAL), all the US would have to do to completely and entirely nuke an app (or an entire federated platform!) in the US would be to declare any foreign entity (country, state, corporation, person, etc) their "adversary". Effectively giving them a single "button" to directly nuke any app and services they don't see fit. No matter how legitimate.
One thing to be aware of is that there is
currently, AFAIK, nonow (since 0.19.3) a way to "disable" a JWT.Before that, once you had created it, if you leaked it, your account was, as far as I can tell, definitely compromised.
Now, it is possible to logout, to mark the JWT as "invalid".
I will add,
as a disclaimer, that I have not checked ifthat as Nutomic highlighted below, there are conditions (password change, etc) under whichany orall JWT (user,instance, etc) become invalid.So do audit the code if this is something that concerns you. As far as I am concerned, I treat the JWTs as extra-sensitive information, and store them only on machines I own.Edit: correct information in the light of Nutomic's comments.