Notices by ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca), page 3

i wonder how many people would pronounce me fēˌlī as in feline

montreal sauce at 1:08:20Eugen (english pronunciation), or i think he prefers actually to be pronounced Eugen (german pronunciation), which makes me cringewhat the heck?!

RE: https://social.deadsuperhero.com/objects/41b3d9c2-e077-4891-8cd0-80424980377f

DO I NEED A HECKING FOOTNOTE (to the copyright act) FOR THIS OR NOT :blobcatnotlikethiscry:
Section 29 of the Copyright Act includes education

Blumento Pferde! ?

RE: https://mk.absturztau.be/notes/97kon2qzlw

Consult your local priest. He can bless your house and advise you on obtaining and setting up a kamidana. However, since you are reading this article, it will be assumed that consulting a priest is not a viable option.:blobfoxgoogly: wikihow :blobcatgooglyshrug:

@puniko@mk.absturztau.be :wolfarmscrossed: :wolfarmscrossed: :wolfarmscrossed:

(:chick_giggle:)

@puniko@mk.absturztau.be puni pun :wolfarmscrossed:

i hate this world :crythumbsup:

bibliocally accurate :woozy_feli:

RE: https://mk.absturztau.be/notes/97c57sur6q

wait that means that i am friend :blobfoxaww:

h e ccccc,,,,, :blobfoxmeltmlem:

@puniko@mk.absturztau.be safari als browser, demnach ist die Auswahl ziemlich limitiert, ublock jibts nich =(

the adblocker doesnt block youtube ads anymore ?

for some reason the pizza place always "detects" the wrong street. correct house number and all, but always one street off :blobfoxgooglyconfused:

hi i’m feli, been around fedi for a while

main interests:
yellow
:yellow_slime:

misspelling of the day: copytight
:blobfoxgooglymlem:

@puniko@mk.absturztau.be sorry dass ich das jetzt rauspicke aberund nein, dazu bräuchte es nicht nen neuen scope, das kann immer noch unter FO laufen, aber im kontext des parentsdoch braucht es (idealerweise, nicht technisch), weil man sonst jeden user dazu zwingt, ggf private Informationen entweder zu dm'en oder mit allen follower des parent posts zu teilen. das wäre dann genau in die andere Richtung restriktiv. wenn ich was schreibe, möchte ich die Möglichkeit haben, dass entweder auch oder nur meinen followern zugänglich zu machen - oder eben nur denen des parent posts/thread teilnehmern. wenn wir schon follower-only privatssphärefreundlich machen wollen. denn der scope hängt ja von der Anzahl der follower ab. auch followers-only kann theoretisch public sein (wenn jemand alle user als follower hat), und da man die follower ja nicht mal zwangsläufig einsehen kann, hat man keine Ahnung was der scope "followers-only des parent posts" eigentlich bedeutet. es muss zumindest die wahl bestehen, das Risiko des weiten "parent-post-FO" einzugehen oder den thread zu brechen. deswegen braucht es mehr scopes. imo idealerweise dm - own-FO (or circles, for private information of the replier) - parent-post-FO-only (for private information of the parent post) - parent-and-own-FO (no private information, to not break the thread) - public (unlisted/listed, wenn der parent public war kann auch die reply public bleiben wenn man das denn will). sonst entscheidet die Software wieder über die (gefühlte) privatssphäre des users aber halt andersherum.

@puniko@mk.absturztau.be is what you are saying that yes "restricting replies to my-followers-only" is bad and that some change in scope to include the other persons followers/thread participants should be there, but "restricting to my-followers-only" is currently the best alternative we have? in that case we agree on the first part, the only thing i am, as a person with exactly 113 followers many of which are alt-accounts, saying is that imo public is the best we currently have

@puniko@mk.absturztau.be and maybe giving people a sense that all information is able to be public to begin with wouldnt be wrong in the first place

@puniko@mk.absturztau.be i do not see how not solving the issue warrants a situation that doesnt solve the issue. it is a non-argument. an info box which educates users, which maybe even lets them check a box so that all liability is on the user, solves the problem insofar as it involves careless user behaviour. and wilful behaviour will always find a way, the only thing you can do is make it more difficult without restricting legitimate use (aka, a checkbock or whatever)