Certified email would solve this, if it was possible to self host it.
Unfortunately running it requires government approval and the resulting emails are legally binding, so I assume hosts will have to go through all kinds of security controls and audits.
Then I guess this is what you get for talking about something without knowing what it is lol.
As another user pointed out, TypeScript is a different language (.ts extension) that extends JavaScript, meaning JS code is valid TS code, but TS adds various language features for type checking. Your editor is then able to interpret your code according to these type structures and warn you if you are making any stupid type errors like this one:
The problem many people have with TS (such as the "big projects" mentioned by Fireship) is that sometimes you end up having code that works but still have to do some weird type gymnastics to please the TS compiler and have it remove any errors and warnings.
That being said, frameworks that "create really weird undecipherable minified JS" do have their place, as they allow you to seamlessy do things that would be either very inelegant and verbose or significantly more complex in vanilla JS, but I won't bore you with an excessively long wall of text.
PS: I love your Czech flag website. Had me jump on my chair when the music started blasting through my headphones.
How is that related to TS? Aside from the fact that your comment might have just started a civil war (no, vanilla JS is not "good enough", they created libraries for a reason) this isn't about using libraries / frameworks. It's about needing some system to handle type annotations to avoid falling in the bottomless pit of:
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property of undefined
There's no real alternatives to JS "for websites" (meaning on the frontend, the part of your code that gets executed on your client's browser). That's what JS was invented for and what it does best.
I say "no real alternative" because technically we also have WebAssembly, which is a tool that allows you to run code written with any language on the web, but if you indeed are a beginner approaching to web development you should just forget about this for now and stick to JS as you learn.
Of course this doesn't mean that you can't use Python on your backend, your server.
I think there's a positive coming from this competition, though. Apparently this infighting has re-lit the want for type annotations to be embedded in vanilla JS (ECMAScript proposal). I feel like this would be the ideal scenario: things working right out of the box without needing a compile step or additional tooling.
You can get as close as it gets to this experience by using alternative runtimes such as Deno or Bun, which have native TS support (meaning you can just execute a .ts file without having to transpile it), but of course as soon as you have to write code for a browser you are back in the middle ages.
I got the same question from another user under my lemmy.ml crosspost, I guess this is a hot feature. Yes there is a way to do that.
When setting a removal rule for a post or a comment, mods can fill an optional message field. After having removed the content (according to the rule), the bot will reply to the user with whatever has been written in said field.
So say your comment got removed because you said a banned word, the AutoMod would reply to your removed comment with a message saying: "Your post has been removed because [...]", depending on what the mods have configured. To clear any doubt, they can also specify a removal reason for the modlog.
Yes! When setting a removal rule for a post or a comment, you can fill an optional message field. After having removed the content, the bot will reply to the user with whatever you have written there.
That is true, but it's a slippery slope I would rather not walk anywhere near. In my humble opinion, account based AutoMod restrictions were the first small steps for the enshittification of Reddit and I wouldn't want to be responsible for such a thing happening to Lemmy.
constant automod rejections along with shadowbanning new users
Fuck that. I had that suggested as a feature and downright refused to implement it. It will never be a thing in my bot. This is entirely about reviewing content, not people.
There's no way to discriminate one based on their account age, instance, what communities they follow or other bullshit systems such as Reddit's karma.
The backend is quite alright. The Rust backend makes it indimidating to approach, but I know it has many advantages.
The frontend could use LOTS of changes. I don't like Inferno, it's messy and confusing to work with. Instead, I would have opted for a Svelte+Tailwind stack for the UI.
Agreed. And where it's not really worth it to link with trains they just do it with buses instead, between the smallest villages and the mid sized towns where trains do arrive.
Then if you have to link something that's even smaller than villages, people can just walk to the nearest village (in Europe this usually means walking 20-30 minutes at most) and take the bus there.
But more importantly, villages and rural places are an area where I can tolerate cars, because they aren't as unnecessary or replaceable as they are in cities.
It is possible to use Discord from the browser without necessarily making an account, but many big servers have restrictive measures that prevent users without a verified email addreds (or even a verified phone number, in the strictest of cases) to access. This will depend on your friends' setup.
I don't know if it's possible to bridge Discord to Matrix, but I can tell you that it's got a pretty prolific API for building bots and integrations, so someone might have already built something of that kind. Alternative clients are tecnically against the TOS (afaik) but I know of people who have built large projects without ever getting any complaints from the company.
I would have guessed that, yes. I guess I just learnt a new word lol
Coconout milk would be confusing if they didn't put a picture of a coconout on the label and made it evident that it what you are buying isn't actually milk. I simply believe this same reasoning also extends to meat and any other products that may have a plant based alternative.
To be fair I hardly ever buy packaged meat so I'm not sure how their labels would look. Though I would expect the plant industries would try and pass their plant based product as the real thing, to trick omnivorous people on buying it instead, so they would write "plant based" or whatever as small as possible if at all (depending on food regulations in the country they are selling it in, of course).
I guess such an assumption would base itself in vegetarian people being more careful with what they buy, compared to normal people, otherwise they'd be tricking them too.
Eh I hadn't really considered the flip side but it makes sense, it's also a problem the other way around for vegetarian folks wanting to be able to spot vegetarian products at a first glance, yeah.
If you wish buy plant based "meat" you should be free to do that, but calling "steak" what clearly isn't is just trying to fool the customer into buying something they're probably not interested in purchasing.
Certified email would solve this, if it was possible to self host it.
Unfortunately running it requires government approval and the resulting emails are legally binding, so I assume hosts will have to go through all kinds of security controls and audits.