I realize that you're using 'my lord' as a bit of an exclamation here, but I initially read it as you addressing the commenter as your lord. it just made me imagine you with a heavily British accent, going full medieval peasant style to mock the guy. I found that quite humorous.
Well, they did it because they're for profit companies looking to wring money out of people's interactions. Lemmy is open source and, by nature, publicly and readily available to whatever observers want to federate. It would be dead simple to create an activitypub server that does nothing but listen and save a copy of everything everyone ever said or posted (at least, those you get it to federate with).
I found a list of prime numbers, which states that the 50,000,000th prime number is 982,451,653, which means 5.08930896% of the numbers up to 982,451,653 are prime. That's unfortunate, as it means the accuracy is actually lower than the original post we go further - down from 95.121% accuracy to 94.921%. Bummer!
Out of curiosity, I then whipped up a quick program in rust that starts from those numbers, crunching forward through the primes while prime_count as f32 / total_count as f32 > 0.05, using 16 CPU cores to divide-and-conquer and check whether a number is prime. There's probably a better way to do that, but meh. Such a check will essentially only get me back above 95% though, and based on the rate of change, I suspect it would take an exponentially higher amount of time than whatever it takes to get to 99.5%.
In the time it's taken me to write this, it's calculated just over 330,000 more primes, reaching ~0.050874 hit rate for primes.
This has led me down a small rabbit hole, in which it turns out there are plenty of folks who have approached the topic of "what percentage of numbers are prime?" - and the answer is essentially "it will eventually round to 0%". Because of you, I remain curious to know when that crosses the threshold of 99.5% though - and I'll at least leave it running for the next day or two to see how close it gets.
Unfortunately though, at the rate my PC can calculate, I don't think I'm personally gonna be hitting an answer to this any time soon. If I ever do manage to figure it out, I'll be sure to update... because hell, why not.
I've also considered trying to find bigger lists of primes, but meh. I've already spent an hour on this that I intended to spend playing D&D so ... meh. =]
Ah, that honestly works fine in my book. It's a bit opaque, but it at least appears that 2xx04 acknowledges the existence of those licenses, which I'd imagine is good enough proof not to get in trouble somehow by forking it!
While I'm not a lawyer, the MIT license is very short. It very clearly states that the MIT license shall be included in any projects that include copies or substantial portions of the MIT-licensed source code. As a result, any projects that are modifications/forks of an MIT-licensed project are, inherently, forced to have the MIT license included with them.
Or in short: You can't take an MIT licensed project, modify it, and remove the MIT license because of your modifications.
As such, 2xx04 is technically in violation of the MIT license. The main thing I don't know is whether that gives you the right to treat 2xx04's repository as though it is MIT license. However, you forked the original project, which means 2xx04 is directly referenced by your repository. To be honest, unless I intended to make money off such a project ... I wouldn't sweat it too hard.
That's the fun of the Fediverse; there isn't a CEO. You're in charge if you want to be. Go setup your own instance if you find you don't like the one you're on, or find one whose admins you like. Don't like Lemmy? Go write your own activitypub software to do the same stuff!
I realize that you're using 'my lord' as a bit of an exclamation here, but I initially read it as you addressing the commenter as your lord. it just made me imagine you with a heavily British accent, going full medieval peasant style to mock the guy. I found that quite humorous.