I waddled onto the beach and stole found a computer to use.

🍁⚕️ 💽

Note: I’m moderating a handful of communities in more of a caretaker role. If you want to take one on, send me a message and I’ll share more info :)

  • 187 Posts
  • 626 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle
  • Seems like the solution is: don’t do exams this way

    This year, the economist decided that both the midterm and the final exams for his course would be of the take-home, closed-book type (there is a certain tradition of this at Ivy League schools). “It’s a very nice kind of exam, because as you’re giving students practically unlimited time to complete it, it lets you make it harder than normal, to see how far they can go.” In this case, Serrano changed some of the model assumptions they had seen in class, and asked students to demonstrate whether certain statements were true or false under the new assumptions.


  • I use a browser extension that sends me to a reddit frontend on the off chance I come across a post while searching. It works pretty well

    Libredirect + the fastest instance

    From the admin side, I do understand what they are saying but I think there’s a better solution to it. We run the old frontend on our instance, and it gets hammered with bots and scrapers. So if we assume that old.reddit works the same way, then it would be attractive to scrapers. But instead of locking it down, I think they could set up something like Anubis or put it behind some other anti-bot measure.












  • Could this be solved by having two renderers, and only using the proprietary Adobe one needed?

    So what do you do when the pedantic gold standard of epubcheck says your book is fine, when it works without issue on Amazon Kindle, Apple Books, Thorium and everywhere else and yet Kobo says it’s “corrupted”?

    I dug into this matter and found out that Kobo uses RMSDK, “Reader Mobile Software Development Kit”, Adobe’s proprietary ebook rendering engine.

    Once the stylesheet was identified as the source of my woes, I could finally drill down to find which specific line was causing the issue. After creating a dozen more variations with different subsets of my stylesheet I eventually identified the culprit. It was this line:

    .copyright img {
        max-width: min(150px, 30vw);
    }
    

    Once I changed it to the more old fashioned max-width: 150px; ADE opened it just fine.

    But what is the problem here? The above code is perfectly valid CSS level 4, it’s just not supported by RMSDK, because its CSS parser is frozen in approximately 2013 — no flexbox, no grid, no math functions, no custom properties. Just good old float, bad font handling, and silent crashes when it sees anything it doesn’t recognize.

    It’s the year 2026. Thanks to the horrendous RMSDK which Kobo decided to use as their backbone for all book rendering (probably for DRM reasons), a single line of perfectly valid CSS turns a perfectly valid EPUB file into a “corrupted file” on Kobo and just drops the whole book. No clear error message, no fallback. Just a massive fail.









  • I feel that some further refinement is needed. I agree with the sentiment behind the latest version of the rule, but I think it still doesn’t address the recent issues.

    The way I see it, there is a very specific type of post that has started showing up very recently, and is getting lots of downvotes. Users here are justifiably suspicious of the pattern.

    The ones that get downvotes are usually:

    • from new accounts
    • the user makes one post, and at most they only responds to comments in that one post
    • the software uses the help of LLMs, while the post and/or comments are also helped by LLMs
    • the software is made to look “professional”, whether it is the UI, the demo, or the README

    I’m not sure what exactly the end goal is, but I don’t believe the story that they all use where they “had this problem and now want to share their solution”. I’m concerned that there is some other end goal, whether it is link farming, SEO manipulation, LLM search result manipulation, or it’s the setup portion of a cyber attack where questionable code will be added later (if it isn’t already).

    Normally I would suggest to just moderate it based off of “you know it when you see it”, but in this case it’s difficult since it’s very similar to legitimate posts. There are real users that want to post with a new account, such keeping their professional life separate from their main account. It’s also hard to differentiate it based on licenses, because those recent accounts almost always license it as FOSS. I also don’t think it’s fair to exclude all AI assisted code, since it’s very common to have that now.

    Perhaps instead of a rule, we could even try some of the following:

    • To reduce the risk of OpenClaw style bots creating content here: AI is ok for the code and external text (ex. the README), but the post here should be written by a human. It’s not like the post needs to be that long to express why someone should look at it, and it won’t go through that many edits. Translations should be done through traditional translation software.
    • To prevent driveby posts, we could automate a comment on new posts see if a user knows where they are posting. Asking about their favourite threadiverse community, or how long they have been a member here, or even how they learned about the community might separate bots from real users. It works pretty well for our registration applications on lemmy.ca / piefed.ca etc.

    On top of being suspicious, I think it boils down to “projects that have a future” and “projects that don’t have a future”. People in this community want to run software that is likely to stay useful and safe over time, and that’s at the core of why these recent ones are downvoted.