Sorry fixed link

Yeah same thing I was wondering. There are still a lot of great RSS readers. Arguably even better than Google Reader was.

Yeah Google never wanted RSS feeds to really be a thing.

Edit: fixed link my bad

Not many things require a polyfill these days. My guess is a lot of older sites are affected.

I’m on Firefox these days. You’d think Firefox would have built in RSS too. Please, web browsers. Bring back the RSS button 😭

Look at the frameworks go!!! I know I know. “its not a framework”…

These were great in their day, but it’s time to move on to something better and safer.

How is it “safer” when contributing to the codebase or filing and discussing issues will now require creating an account and giving up personal information to one of the most privacy-invasive tech companies in the world? 😳

We’re talking about instances having feed content for other instances (on totally different domains), so anything helping with this case would be a “third party service”.

You can use openrss.org RSS feeds. They are there for this exact purpose. For example, you can get an RSS feed of /c/retrogaming@lemmy.ml by going to https://openrss.org/programming.dev/c/retrogaming@lemmy.ml. Then all links in the feed will always go to the post on programming.dev instance.

Is there one for the other sites like bbc.com?

I love a friendly debate 😀:

The statement says How can you steal something that the customer cannot own?. You can definitely steal it if “you” aren’t the customer. And you can steal it from a “customer” even if the customer doesn’t own it and someone else does. And you can steal if even if you are the customer, because you aren’t the owner. The only time you can’t steal it is if you are the owner, because you own it.

The definition of “steal” you mention seems to be proving the point I’m making. Something can be stolen if the person stealing it isn’t the owner, which is the case in the first three examples I mentioned above.

The statement is an odd play on words and loaded with assumptions that are left up to the reader, which is why it’s super weird to use it to try to prove the point the author was trying to make.

if buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing. How can you steal something that the customer cannot own?

By stealing it? You dont have to own something to steal it. Or maybe I’m reading that wrong. Lol it’s a very interesting take but I like the spirit of it… And it made me laugh. Cool 😎

Yes! Can’t believe it’s 2024 and websites are still not accessible. Even the biggest companies are the worst at this… and don’t even get me started on their mobile sites 🙄

deleted by creator

Sure but new versions are released pretty often, which essentially means they can change their license whenever they want.

Interesting idea. A couple questions:

How would it work if the open source maintainer is a commercial company?

AFAIK there are no restrictions on when an Open source maintainer can change their license. They can do it even after their work has already been used.

So couldn’t a company like, Facebook (since they own open source React) just change their React license to this one and all of sudden start charging everyone for it? 🤔

Eh. These sorts of metrics aren’t always accurate. And the source company did the study in 2016, which was a very very different internet, and doesn’t go into detail about how they were able to determine this number. I would take that with a grain of salt. I agree that just having a notice somewhere is better than not, though.

Yeah, it’s definitely a very unique approach I haven’t seen before. I’ve been using the “honeypot” method for years, which has been working surprisingly well.

Wouldn’t this effectively mark all messages from a user who isn’t using JavaScript as spam? 🙃

deleted by creator