"I don’t like it…

• “…so it should be banned” (for everyone) is never the right approach.
• “…so I blocked it” (for me) is.

It’s a simple heuristic that works in almost every situation.

You don’t know what value something you don’t like provides to others.

I did a search here before posting, so thought it was a new issue. Then later remembered I had my view set to 1 day… 🤦🏻‍♂️

The “What’s New” link to the GitHub repo? I see now it’s mentioned as a fix in the most recent version. 👍🏻

I’d wondered if that might be it, thanks.

I know the developer is active here, so thought it night be a good opportunity for them to address it ahead of more questions. 😊

The algorithmic feed and the low barrier to entry, including UX familiarity.

Aside from the headache of understanding what instances are and choosing one, and finding a decent mobile client, a lot of people care about unique usernames - especially those in the business/professional sphere.

I see their point, when @trustedname@genuine-instance can have all their effort and goodwill destroyed in a day by @trustedname@malicious-instance. While the Verification option exists, more needs to be done in ActivityPub and client developer guidelines to prevent or intuitively mitigate this kind of impersonation. But mentioning such shortcomings get sneered at or waved away, which keeps serious well-meaning people away.

Why would they go through that hassle when Bluesky’s shortcomings are ideological and potential future direction?

I’ve worked with both in my career. Tell me more…

Email? So its just encrypted SMS?

Might come down to the metadata, then, like SFTP vs FTPES or GET vs POST.

Your original question was answered by numerous people in the spirit of the community, so you have got best answers it can provide at the moment, but your follow-up comments suggest that you don’t think so.

But I may have misjudged your intent, as looking further I can see you’ve been replying to comments individually. My initial impression was that you were masquerading statements as questions. If I have that wrong, then my apologies.

Yes, but what’s your point here? “Oh no, someone preserve us from… *checks notes* a group of subject matter experts!”?

If that annoys you for some reason, you’d best not learn how the overwhelming majority of products and services see the light of day. Rage aplenty awaits.

Have you seen the list of safety features on UK plugs and sockets? The sockets have shutters in them that prevents anything being inserted into the live or neutral sockets unless the (longer) earth pin of a matching plug is inserted first.

Having said that, I agree: seems to be a belt-and-braces approach. No downsides.

And it allows you to cut power to an appliance without having to remove the plug.

Safety and convenience versus the cost of including them, I expect.

The Wikipedia page for BS 1363 says they’re optional and weren’t added to the standard until 1967. I can’t recall having seen a domestic socket without one.

But it seems the only legal way to read the actual standard is to pay for it, and even the HSE website isn’t much help.

lol… no. There’s a difference between Approximate and Precise location information: 3 sq.km vs 3m. Think suburb vs room.

With location services enabled, you’re providing the latter.

It’s a pretty common and wildly successful marketing strategy to put something on social media with one or more intentional errors to force everyone’s inner Reply Guy to fight the urge to do the thing.

But it also works with unintentional errors. My less well-thought-out replies attract responses like flies. 😄

Whether it indicates the success of your thesis or not depends on how you measure it, I suppose.

Google wants everyone to have location services permanently enabled, gotcha.

To add to this, for those of you in roles that deal with email, think of every time you’ve dealt with a vendor or partner who’ve told you to “just whitelist *@<our-domain> - it’s not in the contract or terms of service, but it’s a requirement”.

The correct, considered and professional answer is, of course, “Fuck off and die.” Without exception, equivocation or apology.

This site is one such example, but at a B2C rather than B2B level.

Waiting for Spez to weigh in with his typical subtlety and even-handedness… 🍿

I think you’ve misunderstood few things in my reply. I’ll clarify…

First, I meant the person with multiple IM clients will be the one who “doesn’t see the problem” with WhatsApp (or whatever). The person moving to Signal just has Signal.

Second, I wasn’t saying you used a fallacy. I was pointing out that when someone thinks of using (or are recommended to use) another IM client, they almost always think they have to uninstall what they’re currently using. (It is more accurate to call it a false dichotomy.) It’s a mystery to me why people think this way about IM clients, as many of us have multiple browsers installed, for example.

Third, my reply was about those you communicate with online, not you. Nothing in my reply was directed at you. 😊

This is pretty close to how I did it.

The “one or the other” thing is a fallacy. You have just one, but they’re clearly happy installing stuff like WA - so tell them to install another app. It’s not like they have to switch.

If they subsequently come to realise the value of Signal in time, all the better.

Possibly, on both counts. I know the Guardian and BBC News style guides use that convention.

Yet there’s this regarding the AP Style Guide:

https://grammarmill.com/ap-style-rule-for-acronyms/

It mentions odd rules like “if an acronym is longer than 5 characters” and such.

Either way, my money’s on an internal style guide that Microsoft (in OP’s example) requires its staff to use.

Me too.

People learn from reading that kind of thing. Aside from it being unnecessary and confusing, there’s going to be a percentage of people who’ll think “Ascii” (or whatever) is a name rather than an abbreviation.