hedgehog

By chance did you make her unintentional malapropism a canon part of the history of the company’s name? Like Google’s backstory (it may be an urban legend, but I heard they’d intended to name it “googol” but didn’t know how to spell the word, and misspelled it as “Google” when submitting their application).

Strange, I suddenly want to have an Italian-inspired, high class restaurant in my game called “Bone Apple Tea”

I still wouldn’t call a car an “investment” or anything, but 100% agreed. The whole “cars lose 50% of their value when you drive off the lot” thing might have been true before the Cash for Clunkers program, but it isn’t anymore. Or maybe it’s true if you’re trying to trade-in the vehicle.

If I wanted to buy the (fairly popular) car I’ve been driving for over 6 years with the same mileage, it’d cost me over 2/3rds what it cost new When I bought it, new cars were less expensive than used cars (i.e., like less than two years old with less than 25k miles) thanks to how much better the interest rates were on the loans. A couple years later, I was getting offers for more than I paid for it. And none of that is a unique experience.

its share value has still risen 27% over the last 12 months

Claiming that GTA is responsible for mass shootings is an example of what pro-gun activists do in order to deflect the blame off of guns.

If the instance or community guidelines state “X isn’t allowed,” then it isn’t censorship to remove X. It becomes censorship when mods start removing things for reasons other than enforcing instance or community guidelines. Until that point, it’s just content moderation.

If the c/Androids community guidelines state that “This community is about human-like robots. Posts regarding the phone OS are unwelcome” and a mod removes such a post, that isn’t censorship. Likewise for spam, or reposts, or any number of other things.

On the other hand if the mods remove a post about a human-like robot built in China because they’re sinophobic, that is censorship. Likewise if the human-like robot was built by Tesla, if the lead engineer were a woman, or anything along those lines. Likewise if the post were instead critical of such a robot - still censorship (unless it’s a news only community and the post was free text or a meme).

Likewise if a community’s guidelines state that controversial statements without reputable sources backing them up, statements known to be false, or statements that have been flagged as false by a fact checker are prohibited, then removing such statements isn’t censorship. It’s moderation.

You don’t have a moral or ethical obligation to respect their terms, but I wouldn’t go too wild with it, as using a ton of data might get noticed and fixed, causing someone else who’s benefiting from this and who can’t afford a replacement setup to lose it.

"I think we should have, like, the same concept of privacy for your conversations with AI

Step 1: Don’t use ChatGPT or other cloud AI services

Step 2: Use AI locally within FOSS applications, or not at all

In fact, Redot has had 13 releases since the project started late last year.

With an absolutely massive number of commits since then.

An absolutely massive number of commits that were originally made to Godot, sure. Redot has 118 more commits than Godot as of the time of this writing (76,344 vs 76,266). That’s not even 1 original commit per day.

I genuinely don't understand why people here are taking it so hard that I wish the Immich devs were using semver.

Because you didn’t say that; you said “Breaking changes in a point release? Not cool” and later “I’m basing this off the guidelines at semver.org.”

I’m paraphrasing your comments from memory, to be clear, so apologies if I misquoted you.

It certainly felt to me like you were assuming that this project was using semver and was not following it well, not that you wouldn’t want to use a project that receives this many breaking changes / that doesn’t follow semver. Those complaints both make a lot more sense to me - and I’ve seen many people say similar things about Immich in the past. In fact, it’s a big part of why I haven’t migrated from Photoprism to Immich myself - in this regard they’re complete opposites.

I don't think there's any room to argue that announcing a 1.x with a change the developers say is a breaking change, which is what Immich have done, fits within the semver.org guidelines.

That wasn’t the argument.

Following semver is optional. If a project doesn’t explicitly state it is following semver, it shouldn’t be assumed that it is. With regard to Immich in particular, a cursory review of their documentation makes it clear that they are not following semver. Literally, go to https://immich.app/ and read the text at the very top of the page:

⚠️ The project is under very active development. Expect bugs and changes.

Go to the repo and you’ll see the README, which states at the very top:

• ⚠️ The project is under very activedevelopment.
• ⚠️ Expect bugs and breaking changes.

If you can read that, see that they’re on major version 1 with a minor version over 100, and you still think they’re using semver, then that’s on you.

The devs have stated they won’t be using semver until they consider Immich production ready, and that moving to a 1.x version from 0.x was a mistake made some time ago. If you want to think about it as though it is semver, consider the major version to still be 0. See https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/5086#discussioncomment-7593227 for example.

As this project is clearly not following semver, the semver guidelines aren’t applicable and haven’t been violated.

I don't think there's any room to argue

Even if semver were applicable, in this case, I would still disagree. The text from semver.org states:

8. Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backward incompatible changes are introduced to the public API.

It doesn’t state that any backward incompatible changes, period, require a major version increase, only changes to the public API. I would personally argue that the deployment configuration is part of the public API, but not all project owners agree with me. Even if they do agree, they might say that this was not a documented deployment configuration and thus not part of the public API, and that it therefore doesn’t necessitate an increase to the major version, but as they knew that people were using that configuration, anyway, they included a note about a potentially breaking change as a courtesy to those users.

Immich isn’t a library (the main use case for semver is dependencies that will be pulled into other projects) and as far as I know they don’t state that they use semver.