Your experience mirrors mine, where you must refer to the Rust and/or JS code to have a chance in hell.

Yep… and if you and I got discouraged, how many other developers did as well? This is why good docs are essential for a healthy ecosystem.

No, I was just chewing on various ideas to integrate with Lemmy and was disappointed with the docs I saw. They seemed OK-ish if you wanted to use the JS client, but not great if you want to do something else.

On similar projects, I’m used to seeing OpenAPI/Swagger/etc. where you have docs on the incoming bodies/fields, what values they can contain, etc.

Right now it’s really bare bones. I see things like ‘auth’ OPTIONAL but not really sure what would go in there.

I can RTFS like another poster said, but of course that’s not as convenient as “general purpose” API docs with examples / tutorial.

I was curious to see if the reply was going to be:

• We are happy with the state of docs (WONTFIX)

OR

• The current situation is temporary and we will provide better docs at some point in the future

proper nouns like sed, awk and grep?

Sorry, we had to deny your application because you’re Asian. Try another school.

Reddit comment threads are currently just full of groupmind wankery. I like being on a platform where I don’t 100% agree with everyone and I don’t have to hold “sanctioned” opinions that are approved by a mod team of 3.

Totally, but at least Oracle doesn’t pretend they are some kind of beacon of open source. Red Hat is trying to party like it’s 1999 while it’s just a boring division of IBM now.

I came for the rm, but stayed for the -rf

Why WOULDN’T we move off if something better came along?

I am. It’s there in the GPL text in black and white. Red Hat does not have any right to place restrictions on the distribution of derivative works that they do not own the original copyright for. Threatening to terminate a service agreement is a restriction.

From what I understand, these restrictions only apply to if you have been provided the software. Red Hat is under no legal obligation to supply you with their software, nor to continue doing so if you violate their terms.

I agree this makes them total scumbags, but as far as I understand the GPL they are not breaking the law.

The new model is “fuck you, pay me”

Nothing a fork or two won’t solve.

Canonical has their own problems right now… Not a lot of snap fans out there. Canonical seems determined to skate to somewhere their users don’t live and create a world they don’t want.

Red Hat died the day IBM bought them. All that garbage about “leaving Red Hat alone” was of course total nonsense. IBM is doing what it does best – squeeze its existing customer base for short term gains. This won’t be the last thing Red Hat does that makes people annoyed.

a lot of white men with similar records

There are some democrats that are male progressives that have a law background that ran for president that are not hated by people? Who?

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris have in common

I would posit those three agree with each other far more than they disagree with each other. It would be odd to find someone that objects philosophically to only one in that set. From where I sit they have a lot of similarities:

• Party Affiliation: All three women are Democrats.
• Experience in Public Service: Clinton, Warren, and Harris have held significant roles in public service. Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, as well as a U.S. Senator for New York. Elizabeth Warren is a U.S. Senator for Massachusetts. Kamala Harris is the Vice President under President Joe Biden, and prior to that, she was a U.S. Senator for California and the Attorney General of California.
• Women’s Rights Advocacy: Each of these women has been an advocate for women’s rights. Clinton has a long history of advocating for women’s rights both domestically and internationally. Warren has focused on issues such as equal pay for equal work. Harris has a record of fighting for women’s health rights and equal opportunities in the workplace.
• Law Background: All three women have backgrounds in law. Clinton is a Yale Law graduate who worked as an attorney before her political career. Warren was a law professor for more than 30 years, and Harris was a prosecutor and served as the Attorney General of California.
• Presidential Candidates: All three have run for president. Clinton was the Democratic nominee in 2016, Warren was a primary candidate in the 2020 election, and Harris was also a primary candidate in the 2020 election before eventually becoming the vice-presidential candidate.
• Progressive Policies: They all have advocated for progressive policies such as healthcare reform, climate change mitigation, and wealth inequality reduction. Clinton championed healthcare reform as early as the 1990s, Warren has been a vocal critic of Wall Street and a proponent of wealth redistribution, and Harris has put forth plans addressing healthcare access and climate change.

This is the real question. I’m sick of people dismissing criticisms against her because she’s black and/or a woman. Give me an actual reason to like her!

She’s definitely a horrible public speaker. I totally disagree with how she tackled truancy during her time as a DA/AG. Is this just my internalized racism speaking or can I ACTUALLY feel this way?

I don’t like her because of situations like her truancy laws. If you think she’s not liked just because of her race and/or gender, then you’ll never understand why people don’t agree with her.

I’m not a big fan of the Republican party but there are some issues they are championing at the moment like free speech

Free speech like this?

• Legislation in Tennessee could potentially criminalize speech that causes ‘emotional distress’ to or ‘frightens’ another person, which could be seen as a suppression of free speech (www.alternet.org/gop-revolts-against-free-speech-republicans-push-anti-protest-bills-across-the-country/).

• In Washington state, Republican Senator Doug Ericksen introduced a bill that would allow state authorities to charge protesters with “economic terrorism” if they participated in illegal demonstrations or coerced private citizens into doing so (www.alternet.org/gop-revolts-against-free-speech-republicans-push-anti-protest-bills-across-the-country/).

• In Kentucky, a bill was passed criminalizing the act of insulting a police officer (www.alternet.org/gop-revolts-against-free-speech-republicans-push-anti-protest-bills-across-the-country/).