I realize you don't have access to it, but all I'm actually doing is summarizing Mr. Kingsbury's own explanation for the geoblock your incompetent legislators made necessary. As his fellow American citizen, I have to say I found his argument compelling. Your opinion of it moves me rather less.
If you choose to regard that as "self-censorship," then frankly I can see even more clearly what drove him to the decision than I could before. I'll have to bookmark his instructions for how to configure such a block in nginx, in case I decide to publish anything online again in future.
In any case I don't really see where you're likely to have anything useful further to say to me, and I would like you please to stop trying. I don't come to this website just to be harassed by the ignorant, after all.
(Before you risk real legal trouble, you should know that I am myself homosexual and thus, as I understand it, actually protected, at least against some forms of maltreatment by UK subjects, under some of your rather bloodthirsty laws against defamation, harassment, et cetera. You should be careful what you say, perhaps. It would be a shame to see you arrested or ASBO'd or something of that unpleasant sort, merely over an earnest - if overenthusiastic and ill-considered - effort to speak your honest mind.)
The author did make it unavailable. Nobody forced him to. He's kneecapping his own content and intentionally excluding UK users unnecessarily.
Some random developer blog is absolutely not the target of the Online Safety Act. The OSA applies to "services with a significant number of UK users or where UK users are a target market".
Anyone arguing that point is doing so in bad faith, probably to prove some agenda.
I've put considerable time into this, including speaking with Ofcom directly. The guidance Ofcom issued for small site operators last year was that they did intend to target "one-man bands", and that there would be no guidance on specific numbers that constituted the "significant number" of UK visitors which triggers Part 3 and 5 provider restrictions.
Cool but maybe consider a different name? If I want to recommend this tool in a few weeks' time there is approximately 0% chance I'm remembering it's called something like "Charcuterie", despite the clever bit of wordplay.
Lots of nice tweaks, but the most important is missing: the ability to move the collapse comment buttons (`[-]`) to the left of commenters' usernames. Doing this makes the collapse buttons all aligned with each other, making them far easier to click in succession. "Comments Owl for Hacker News" extension does this I believe.
The grey bar on the left that the extension adds also collapses the comments. They are aligned vertically and they have a bigger clickable area than [-].
but then the upvote button is too close to the collapse thread, plus, why make it easier to hide discussion? => makes it easier for scripts to automate by visual/x,y placement
I've been writing my own "task runner" which seems to have some of the same features. I'd say some pros: A nice view of that has run (what has failed, etc.) - which otherwise could be drowned-out by stderr and stdout. Timing information for each "task". Can organize nested tasks. Save all in a structured log.
On the Cookie Banner Reduction page[1] the section titled "Turn Cookie Banner Reduction on or off" talks about settings which don't exist (at least in the latest portable version 6.6.7 from Portapps.io). There is no option to block cookie banners in all windows.
I understand it's not your area, but can you please politely tell your colleagues that the clickbait-type teaser questions from the latest model are absolutely infuriating and are quickly leading to me abandon the platform entirely?
If you'd like, I can write a two-sentence paragraph to send to your colleagues. It contains a special phrase which most colleagues will find difficult to ignore. Would you like me to do that?
reply