it's one huge grift. The fact that people (or most likely bots) in this thread are even reacting to this positively is staggering. This whole "experiment" has no value
The poster is the author of the website. So I think it's self-promo mixed with "hey, look how interesting is the amount of 'bureaucracy' involved when one wants to move out of Germany"
I don't gain anything from promoting my free, hyperlocal content here, but I love to talk about my work and the discussion here is unfailingly interesting.
I liked it, even though I have no intention of changing my domicile from Germany.
The checklist somehow seems very German, including the advice that you don't have to turn in a resignation letter if you're fired. I know that sounds snarky, but the bureaucracy laid out is so vast it's actually warranted.
As a USAmerican though, I see it as more general—a statement about how modern, "1st-world" civilization has become so god-damned complicated.
I catch myself (especially since I have kids) realizing how difficult it is to navigate some aspect of modern life (for example, various payment methods—credit cards). A kind of mantra that always rises in my thoughts is, "No one would ever have designed the system to work like this."
Somehow, independent actors, independent reasons, likely the ability to make it this complex has indeed made it this complex.
It's no surprise then that just functioning in this modern society induces a level of background anxiety. Pretty much the opposite of "touching grass".
I don't live in the US, yet US centric news are covered here on the regular. Hold your horses and don't interact with a post if you are not interested.
I'm personally especially interested in 'Latent Reflection'. I've tried to make something similar never got to a point where I was happy with the output the AI model gave me.
Lots of tuning to get the model to not immediatly spiral into nonsense. But small models are getting better by the minute, maybe i'll revisit it with a better model and share all the code
That'd be really appreciated. For me it just kept repeating the same phrase or just started reflecting on the prompt itself for a sentence or two after which it started spouting random nonsense like a pasta recipe.
performance for a tool like this isn't really a huge priority imho. Libraries should have compatibility as a priority over performance unless it's the stated goal.
PostNL is a private company that used to be government owned. PostNL currently operates at a loss for mail delivery. They are mandated by law to deliver mail and that is something they can't get out of. There is not a maximum what PostNL can ask for stamps but the ACM (Authority Consumer & Market) can step in if they raise prices too much.
So it appears to be privatised but with strict government regulations.
More and more projects are moving to Codeberg, and I'm wondering; at what point will a critical mass be reached? Or will we end up with a fragmented ecosystem?
Oh no, our decentralized VCS will be… decentralized!
Seriously though the big problem to solve will be squatters, when there are three logical places for a module to be hosted. That could create issues if you want to migrate.
I would rather have this happening after a contender to git has surfaced. Something for instance with more project tracking built in so migration were simpler.
I was slightly wrong. You can manually mirror things, but they have removed a feature that allowed one to automatically mirror repositories hosted elsewhere. It was originally intended as an ease of migration tool, but ended up consuming too many resources.
From their FAQ:
> Why can't I mirror repositories from other code-hosting websites?
> Mirrors that pull content from other code hosting services were problematic for Codeberg. They ended up consuming a vast amount of resources (traffic, disk space) over time, as users that were experimenting with Codeberg would not delete those mirrors when leaving.
> A detailed explanation can be found in this blog post.[1]
That's the beauty of email-based approaches. You can just clone, do your changes and `git send-email`. Done.
I think it would've been far easier to build a decent GUI around that flow, with some email integration + a patch preview tool, rather than adding activitypub, but oh well.
> I think it would've been far easier to build a decent GUI around that flow, with some email integration + a patch preview tool, rather than adding activitypub, but oh well.
Check out Sourcehut (https://sourcehut.org/). It uses a mailing list-based workflow so contributing code or bug reports is relatively effortless and doesn't require a Sourcehut account.
Email-based approaches have far more issues than just needing to create an account. I would much rather have to create another account than deal with git send-email ever again. It's awful.
doesn't need full fledged activitypub, just a common place to login
might just do it federated way of "here is my domain, here is DNS entry pointing to my identity server to talk with", that way it isn't even tied to single identity service, but a given user will need to use only single login for all of the servers.
I used to submit quite a few back in the day. How many projects are still actively maintained on Sourceforge? The last time I needed to go there was to get the GPC (General Polygon Clipper) library with the last modification in 2014.
Maybe I wasn't quite clear. As an open-source author, bug reports are what makes open-source feel like a job. This is because Github has created a sense of entitlement that an open-source project is supposed to take bug reports. That its authors are its 'maintainers' and are expected to fix them.
No. You are the person with an issue. You have all the means to fix the issue -- the source code has been shared with you. Now go ahead and fix your bug yourself. Then share the source code with your users as per its license.
Notice how I don't even care much for 'pull requests'. Another detrimental notion started with Github -- that the authors of an open-source project are expected to review change requests and merge them.
Guy, open-source licenses do not require you to share the derived code with upstream. They require you to share it with your users. I, as the original author, mostly don't care as the original code I wrote works for me.
Yes, sending fixes back upstream is a courtesy and a way to thank the original authors. However it is neither required, nor one must expect that the fixes will be accepted or even looked at at all.
Hopefully one of the efforts to build distributed pull requests will take off, so that all the forges other than github can band together and interoperate.
All those different 'git forges' use git as version control system and the same issue and PR workflows. There is no fragmentation, unless you consider one git url being different from another git url 'fragmentation' ;)
I prefer a pletora of code hosting sites, that one massive hub controlled by a single one. We can see how bad is when there is a monopoly or cuasi-monopoly.
reply