Username checks out 😅

60000 KES (Kenyan Shillings) is about US$465

I understand that these people should, of course, be held accountable

Right, so who? And with what evidence?

.

.

.

Oh yeah, that info is (probably) in the Epstein Files.

I don’t fully understand. Can you give a concrete example? Like you meet someone who seems like a woman to you, they say they’re a man, and you’re like, “no, no, you’re a woman, I reject your self identification of being a man”?

Dumbest thing I’ve read all day, thanks.

I stopped my see-food diet and lost weight.

I’m not in a position right now to look at the files. What language is it written in? I wonder if Bedrock was branched from this project.

On Wikipedia, 4J is credited with working on Bedrock on the main Minecraft page, but not on the Bedrock page.

Edit: actually, I see on the PS3 legacy console edition page that it says it was written in C++. However, it seems that pocket edition was the source for Bedrock. Perhaps this was a separate branch from pocket edition? I would guess the PC target already existed if that’s the case and was mostly used for testing until Bedrock came along and they made PC a full target platform.

Predictions are hard especially about the future.

Wise words. ;-)

Lay on your back and take my… Upvote

Here’s what it looks like on the Lemmy web interface:

https://lemmy.world/post/43511228

What are you using to post links? This is at least the second post of yours I’ve seen that isn’t a link, just a picture.

A couch and a cell phone.

Has the accuracy of the snapshots actually changed based on this edit? After all, if it’s factual information being presented…

Yes! Quite literally, yes. They’re supposed to be an archive of what is on other sites. It doesn’t matter if the original site was, right, wrong, complete, incomplete, accurate, inaccurate, factual, unfactual, etc. If they change things, they’re editorializing and are no longer an archive, they’re new content - which is not the purpose people use them for.

I do agree that it raises the issue of what other modifications there may be,

That’s literally the point. It doesn’t matter how much you “understand the reasoning” (though you also think it’s childish and don’t agree with the actions). You can use it if you want to, no one is stopping you. The point is Wikipedia can’t trust it as a source of archived data and has every right to ban it.

That’s inappropriate, childish, and unprofessional. It makes them untrustworthy for citations. There are better ways of handling it.

If altering snapshots for a grudge isn’t your definition of “behaving poorly” for a site archiving the state of the Internet, then you must not think they have to be an accurate source of information. If they’re not an accurate source of information, then Wikipedia has no obligation to allow them to be used in citations, and they should remove such citations.

It sounds like archive.today is behaving poorly. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn’t exactly “big money”. If you know different on either front, can you please explain. Otherwise your comments are meaningless.