I use TiddlyWiki via TiddlyPWA. It’s an offline-capable PWA with builtin sync and encryption. It doesn’t have folders but it does have nestable tags. I don’t think it supports markdown out of the box, but I’m positive you can find a plugin to use markdown. Plugins are crazy easy to install in TiddlyWiki; you just drag and drop the plugin into your wiki window and confirm the installation.
TiddlyWiki via TiddlyPWA is what I use. I don’t know if it supports the S Pen and the notes are all saved in a single HTML file.
Entirely unmoderated tags are not an option for lemmy as the moderation workload would be too much. Additionally users being able to type out tags themselves introduces splintering in the tag contents due to typos. A better solution is a curated list of tags users can attach to their posts
I vehemently disagree with the main idea behind this RFC. Just let users put arbitrary tags on their posts and other users can search for whatever tags they want. The rest of the fediverse has unmoderated hashtags and it works fine. I don’t see a good reason hashtags should require moderation. And typos can be corrected by editing the post.
Adding those restrictions just makes this feature more complex than it needs to be and reduces compatibility with the fediverse. Users of any fediverse software can create a post in a lemmy community and those posts may have arbitrary tags. Why should lemmy users have less capability on lemmy than external users?
Finally, hashtags could be a useful way to filter posts within a community if these restrictions are dropped. I posted this in the github thread, but imagine a general programming community. Posts could be tagged with a language, paradigm (OOP, functional, etc), or whatever else to allow users to browse subtopics within a community. Having to request moderators add a tag is an unnecessary extra step.
It’s not OP’s fault, but voting is how we’re supposed to curate content. This post doesn’t have a title or description so it’s a bad post on lemmy and I think downvoting it is acceptable. Don’t consider votes a reflection of a user’s value or standing
Agreed. This is a lemmy bug. The OP is on mastodon (where video previews are fetched and displayed) and has no control over how its rendered over here. It’d be nice if lemmy fetched the title and description
This is exciting. I think code forges are one of the biggest opportunities for ActivityPub to really go mainstream and change the internet. Not only because it’ll make working with open source way easier since you can work with any compatible forge, but developers will be more exposed to ActivityPub just by working with the software and so more likely to participate in AP dev. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the fediverse. There’s been a lot of talk from various organizations/companies but this will be the first large project adopting AP. I’m interested to see how development goes for them and for other fediverse projects.
I wonder what changes it will force on Mastodon. Masto won’t be the biggest project anymore and won’t be able to throw its weight around as much. Just like the recent influx of users forced the implementation of full text search and has reenergized conversations about quote posts, I think federated gitlab would force masto to rethink some things.
I don’t see it withering away anytime soon. My entire career has been enterprise web development (which is why I roll my eyes at all the web dev rants). Every company I’ve worked at has used Java on the backend and some JS framework for the frontend. Java has only been improving in that time and getting much easier to write. I don’t see companies taking an (in their view) unnecessary risk that makes it harder for them to hire and lose efficiency, at least in the short to medium term.
I think the only way that changes is if developers are interested enough to try Rust, or any other language, in their free time. If they like it enough, they’ll suggest it at work. If enough developers are doing that, it’ll slowly shift the local scene.
my original point was that the main idea of the article down plays the accessibility gains of the modern web. Your reading was that the author meant a different definition of accessibility and not A11y, which would mean the author didn’t just down play it, they completely ignored it. The author is complaining that the modern web is awful, while ignoring the huge gains for people who need these accessibility features and how awful web 1.0 was for them
Are you asking for every article ever to have a section discussing accessibility?
No. I’m asking that when they complain about how the modern web is “fucked” and web 1.0 was better, they don’t try to act like that is an absolute, since that’s an opinion that is not widely applicable.
No, thats just the angle that the article wanted to take. Just because it ignores an aspect of something doesn’t mean that its position is moot.
Ignoring part of a topic makes your argument weaker.
Accessibility almost always refers to disabled people, especially in web development. I’ve never heard anyone in the industry refer to accessibility in any other way, without explicitly making that clear.
If they meant the reading you took from it, that’s even worse and my point is even more pertinent.
Accessibility wasn’t the main topic discussed in the article
That’s part of the problem. All these rants about the glory of Web 1.0 are ignoring the fact that Web 1.0 wasn’t usable for anybody with accessibility issues and the modern web is better for them. A tiny acknowledgement at the bottom of their rant shows how they value accessibility lower than all of their other concerns.
If Mozilla open sourced it years ago like they promised, it could be picked up by someone else.
Not really. There was a recent article that came out that said tumblr is still losing money. I don’t see them spending time and money on something that doesn’t have a direct monetization strategy, especially since their userbase isn’t actually asking for ActivityPub
Rereading my comment, it comes off a little brusque so I want to clarify a bit. I think user-defined multireddits are a good feature and could exist alongside my own proposal. Users having more control over their own feed is a good thing.
But my proposal has a different goal, which is to reduce duplication of links and keep conversation more centralized. It’s not a feature most users would even be aware of because it’s only manageable by community mods.
Community Grouping #3071 is an issue I created and it’s specifically not related to multis. Its purpose is to allows mods to unite their distinct communities into a logical community.
But #1 is predicated on #2. If developers are aware of the risk of EEE, then they won’t try to remain compatible with Meta extensions, which means development of the open AP ecosystem will continue at the same pace.
Yes I read that and explained why I don’t think its relevant. Facebook can’t slow down progress on the fediverse because:
I’ve never really understood the EEE argument here. XMPP was an open proptocol, Google embraced it and attracted users, then extended it and took those users away. But according to this article, Google didn’t extinguish XMPP. It’s still around and serving its niche community.
That’s already the situation the fediverse is in. This is a niche community and there are already existing social media companies that the majority of internet users are on. If Facebook joins the fediverse, it brings billions of new users to the fediverse. If they then leave the fediverse, ActivityPub will still be here and all of us on the real fediverse will still be here, in a niche community. Everyone here has already chosen the fediverse despite it being a clunky, unpolished, niche network. How is EEE a relevant fear for the fediverse?
The numbers for lemmy are probably way outdated. Take a look at https://lemmyverse.net/communities. It lists 636 instances but FediDB only has 302. And remember most of this growth has only come in the past week or two.
Also, mastodon only has 1.25 million active users according to FediDB, though that’s probably outdated too.
Apple’s implementation of other PWA standards requires an app to be opened from the home screen. A user can’t access features of the app if they can’t add it to the homescreen.