Trusting-Trust Attack against an Entire Linux Distribution through Binary Manipulation by @zacchiro et al: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.24888
How do I make sharkey not use that horrible mm/dd/yyyy date format? My browser locale is set correctly and akkoma uses dd/mm/yyyy, but for some reason sharkey is still using mm/dd/yyyy
@hexaheximal @kemona_halftau guix takes the long (full source bootstrap) path for zig, it probably would here too
> grep '(define zig' gnu/packages/zig.scm
(define zig-0.10-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.10
(define zig-0.10.0-538-source
(define zig-0.10.0-539-patch
(define zig-0.10.0-542-patch
(define zig-0.10.0-610
(define zig-0.10.0-675
(define zig-0.10.0-722
(define zig-0.10.0-747
(define zig-0.10.0-748
(define zig-0.10.0-851
(define zig-0.10.0-853
(define zig-0.10.0-961
(define zig-0.10.0-962
(define zig-0.10.0-1027
(define zig-0.10.0-1073
(define zig-0.10.0-1497
(define zig-0.10.0-1505-source
(define zig-0.10.0-1506
(define zig-0.10.0-1637-source
(define zig-0.10.0-1638
(define zig-0.10.0-1657
(define zig-0.10.0-1681
(define zig-0.10.0-1712
(define zig-0.10.0-1713
(define zig-0.10.0-1888
(define zig-0.10.0-1891
(define zig-0.10.0-2558
(define zig-0.10.0-2565-source
(define zig-0.10.0-2566
(define zig-0.10.0-2571
(define zig-0.10.0-2796-source
(define zig-0.10.0-2797
(define zig-0.10.0-2824-source
(define zig-0.10.0-2838
(define zig-0.10.0-3660
(define zig-0.10.0-3726
(define zig-0.10.0-3728
(define zig-0.10.0-3807
(define zig-0.10.0-3813
(define zig-0.10.0-3980
(define zig-0.10.0-3985
(define zig-0.11.0-149
(define zig-0.11.0-384
(define zig-0.11.0-494
(define zig-0.11.0-587
(define zig-0.11.0-631
(define zig-0.11.0-638
(define zig-0.11.0-702
(define zig-0.11.0-761
(define zig-0.11.0-1967
(define zig-0.11.0-3245
(define zig-0.11.0-3344
(define zig-0.11.0-3501
(define zig-0.11.0-3503
(define zig-0.11.0-3506
(define zig-0.11.0-3604
(define zig-0.12.0-109
(define zig-0.13.0-286
(define zig-0.13.0-503
(define zig-0.13.0-1323
(define zig-0.13.0-1528
(define zig-0.13.0-1951
(define zig-0.13.0-1952
(define zig-0.13.0-2795
(define zig-0.13.0-2899
(define zig-0.13.0-2924
(define zig-0.13.0-2925
(define zig-0.13.0-3252
(define zig-0.14.0-0
(define zig-0.14.0-687
(define zig-0.14.0-877
(define zig-0.14.0-930
(define zig-0.14.0-934
(define zig-0.14.0-1091
(define zig-0.14.0-1197
(define zig-0.15.0-0
(define zig-0.15.0-1447
(define zig-0.15.0-1459
(define zig-0.15.0-2738
(define zig-0.15.0-2807
(define zig-0.15.0-2821
(define zig-0.15.0-2876
(define zig-0.11-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.12-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.13-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.14-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.15-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.16-libc-abi-tools
- followers-only sucks and people surveyed would prefer the visibility to be coherent even if it’s something simple like sharing the root post’s visibility
the activitypub spec mentions this problem and provides a solution (replies to follower-only posts should be sent to the followers of the original poster, which requires the original poster’s server to forward such replies). I don’t understand why nobody does this.
- people don’t like mentioned-only as a visibility and want “proper” DMs
what’s the difference between “proper” DMs and mentioned-only visibility? the only thing I can think if is that “proper” DMs are actually p2p (like DCC on IRC), but hardly any protocol has this