If you guessed it right, your inflexible implementation becomes an advantage against other inflexible implementations.

There, I generated an AGI (actual grumpy ignoramus) summary for y’all.

A naive answer:

Replace “Lemmy” with a “Nazi manufactured gun”.

A less naive answer:

Consider various meanings “use” takes in your question and decide accordingly.

First, Omarchy doesn’t need funding or partners. It’s backed by a Nazi multimillionaire.

Second, the whole apolitical argument is bullshit. Everything is political. Support for a distro that doesn’t really need support by nature of being a child of a Nazi multimillionaire is a support for that Nazi multimillionaire.

“We didn’t support them because of that” means nothing. The support still sends a message. Just like artist loses control over interpretation of their art the moment they release it, people lose control over interpretation of their actions the moment they act. Does it sound fair? Maybe not, but it’s how reality works.

Power users rebase with squashes and fixups multiple times a day. Especially if the job’s integration process isn’t enforcing long living branches.

Reflog is useful then, because you literally rewrite history every rebase.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/12/sweden-set-to-rent-cells-in-estonian-jails-as-it-runs-out-of-room-for-its-prisoners

Estonia is not the target of comparison here.

PS: When you read „country A is renting prisons in country B”, your first reaction should be „what the fuck is going on in country A”, not „what’s wrong with prisons in country B”. The fact that it wasn’t tells a lot about your character.

They are too busy renting prisons in Estonia.

This is one of those times when the attempt to address the wrong part of a statement immediately goes into Ackermann-like recursion.

The only irony present is the pretense of validity of the supposed contradiction.

I love the choice of standard to hold yourself up to.

It did solve my impostor syndrome though. Turns out a bunch of people I saw to be my betters were faking it all along.

Any claim of universal system of morality existence shatters at the minutest contact with history.

The idea of morality is dominant and potentially universal across human societies. The actual definitions are invented and reinvented constantly and fairly rapidly.

However you like, REST doesn’t dictate anything there. Just be consistent and use hypermedia.

JSON APIs almost never follow REST because they almost never use JSON as hypertext. Worse, no complete stable hypertext JSON standard exists. There’s JSON-HAL, but it lacks a way to represent resource templates (think HTML’s <form>).

Therefore, with JSON APIs ignoring one of the most basic idea behind REST, why would anyone expect them to follow another idea of REST - consistency?

REST is a deceptively simple concept. Any time you build an HTML website a human can navigate without consulting documentation, you’re doing it better than vast majority of swagger documented corporate APIs.

JSON API almost always means “not REST”. In other words, it works as intended.

I can’t muster any sarcasm out of sheer disappointment. You win this time…

I’d probably add that for something like nextcloud granted scopes can be an „orthogonal”–for the lack of a better word–subset of requested scopes.

The set of requestable scopes has to be defined by the system itself, not its specific configuration. E.g. „files:manage”, „talk:manage”, „mail:read” are all general capabilities the system offers.

However, as a user I can have a local configuration that adds granularity to the grants I issue. E.g.: „files:manage in specific folders” or „mail:read for specific domains or groups only” are user trust statements that fit into the capability matrix but add an additional and preferably invisible layer of access control.

It’s a fairly rare feature in the wild and is a potential UX pitfall, but it can be useful as an advanced option on the grant page, or as a separate access control for issued grants.

https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/

That aside, why is nextcloud asking for scopes from remote API in the diagram? What is drawn on the diagram has little to do with OAuth scopes, but rather looks like an attempt to wrap ACL repository access into a new vocabulary.

Scopes issued by the OAuth authorization server can be hidden entirely. The issuer doesn’t hold any obligation to share them with authorized party since they are dedicated for internal use and can be propagated via invisible or opaque means.

I really can’t figure out what’s going on with that diagram.

As a Ruby fan having a blast with Elixir, where the hell is anything BEAM related?

The compass is truly political.

I’ve been gradually optimizing towards immediate existential dread over the past few years. Still get distracted sometimes, but I’m getting there.

Are you stupid or are you paid? „Let them have land” is literally the simplest most retarded solution, yet you dare use that descriptor against something else.

Ceding land to Russia doesn’t stop people from dying. Never did, never will do.

I get it, your sorry pathetic ass is tired of war that you’re not affected by. You’d rather sweep a few million lives under the rug and call it peace.

Well, your voice belongs under that very rug.

Following years of under-investment and despite increasing ticket prices, DB continues to make annual losses.

Ah, so nothing’s gonna change.

Russian allies also don’t give a fuck about red lines.

Whereas Ukraine’s allies were so unwilling to commit, that the war that could’ve been finished in the first year is increasingly likely to transition into EU invasion.