Looks like relying on a centralised github isn't the most reliable choice. It's convenient, but if you don't want to be held ransom by Microsoft's decisions, then a self hosted repository has to be the way forwards.
At some point, someone will (re)discover the Linux Kernel development model again and announce that chatting over a mailing list, reporting bugs over (self-hosted) Bugzilla and sending patches via mail is the best thing since sliced bread ;)
Reddit thread here : https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/103upr6/au... update: Gitgud repo created here : https://gitgud.io/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui (Gitgud seems to be really slow) Further update : Account was suspended due to "TOS violations" : https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/103uwx1/au...
Yeah, someone should invent a version control system that does not rely on some central entity but is actually distributed.
I know you're joking, but what I suppose would need to happen is for someone to also come up with ways to do federated code discovery, search, browsing and ways to show off contributions. For issues and PRs there's mailing lists, but it seems the young uns are appalled by that, so maybe that too.
Gitea and forks exist, Fossil is also a plausible alternative although it seems not everyone likes its workflow. Maybe discovery could be handled simillar to Mastodon through ActivityPub, I think it wouldn't even be too hard to integrate into existing Git code forges.
That's a nice example of false accusations. Parenthesis are used for increasing the weights of some terms. See how he uses single, double or triple parenthesis on different words. It has nothing to do with the triple parenthesis jew thing.
No way, next thing you'll tell me Lisp isn't actually an antisemetic dogwhistle.
I checked one at random and he's not black Mati Klarwein
[flagged]
It was 100% random. I'm surprised from a reddit thread that somebody else mentioned this Mati as a counter example as well, so maybe the one I randomly picked was an outlier, or maybe because of the csv "layout" that one stood out more to me and to other people.
I checked one at random and he's not black Mati Klarwein
I checked a few more at random:
* Bill Jacklin
* Hiroshi Sugomoto
* Josef Albers
* David Teniers the Younger
None of them are black.
Edit: As eyko pointed out below, these are not in the 'n' category. So I searched for people in that category, and all the ones I checked turned out to have been black (other than Mati Klarwein).
Whatever side you are on in this debate of "should GitHub decide what is good and bad" I think most people would agree that they really should quote a specific violation of specific TOS when they close your account. This should be the norm, as opposed to the current situation in which you are left wondering what the hell was problematic that some GitHub employee disagrees with. The corporation may benefit from having…
I had a newly-created GitHub account banned when I uploaded a Scrabble word list to it as a Gist. Turns out it included various slur words and their systems picked this up automatically.
Although they didn't immediately specify the reason for the ban, to their credit the GitHub support person did explain what had happened when I appealed and the ban was lifted.
> Prior to its use as an antisemitic label or identifier, ((( screen name ))) had been used in online communities such as AOL to indicate that a user was "cyberhugging" the user with the specified screen name. Why are all the nice things ruined by bigots.
Just wait till you hear that some circles of the net think using pepe the frog is a racist dog whistle.
Or that using the ok finger gesture briefly was career ending because 4chan openly declared a psyop to see if they could bait social media into declaring it a white supremacist symbol. Worked like a charm and hysteria abounded for a couple of months before the next hysteria was birthed and that one quickly forgotten. Unfortunately, some people who don't keep up with the day-to-day changes in what's considered unacceptable communication, got labeled as racist for making the ok sign even though there was no ill intent or even knowledge that anyone now considered it a taboo gesture.
Whatever side you are on in this debate of "should GitHub decide what is good and bad" I think most people would agree that they really should quote a specific violation of specific TOS when they close your account. This should be the norm, as opposed to the current situation in which you are left wondering what the hell was problematic that some GitHub employee disagrees with. The corporation may benefit from having…
> they really should quote a specific violation of specific TOS when they close your account.
I suspect this ends up being impractical, due to helping the bad actors too much.
I think moderation being so inconsistent/unclear is mostly because moderation is difficult.