What client are you using?

I use Lemmy UI ^[1], Tesseract ^[2], and Thunder ^[3].

[…] Boost is totally screwing up the references display

Yeah, I’ve heard report of that bug in Boost before [1] [2].

Out of curiosity, what does it look like for you?

It’s not off-topic when the person in question is involved. […]

As stated in the title, the topic is concerning the AI bots that are spamming GitHub repos ^[1], not anything to do with nutomic. I personally encountered the bot in nutomic’s repo ^[2], so I simply used it as a generic example. Given this, your comment feels off-topic, imo.

Maybe a joke at the expense of StackOverflow. […]

Yeah, I figured that, but I don’t understand how it’s relevant to the topic of this post.

I’m not sure I understand the relevance of your comment. Could you explain?

[…] Who’s that […]?

I presume they are referring to @nutomic@lemmy.ml ^[1]; nutomic is one of the main Lemmy developers ^[1.1].

Context? […] what does he have to do with this post?

If they are indeed referring to @nutomic@lemmy.ml, I presume they are mentioning nutomic because the example GitHub repository that I cited ^[3] is owned by nutomic ^[2]; that being said, specifically regarding their claim itself that nutomic is transphobic ^[4] and is a genocide denier ^[4], it is entirely off topic, imo.

I will make no comment on the veracity of the claim itself without evidence. I do not wish to speak for nutomic — I will let them speak for themself here should they wish.

Anecdotally, I have personally encountered a bug where my Linux system couldn’t handle the EDID from the monitor — so that particular model of monitor didn’t function with Linux despite it working fine on Windows.

Also seems the most useful cause you get two colors for the price of one.

Given my personal preference for the Uniball Vision Needle (not pictured), I’ll go for 1.

please touch my-doc 🥺👉👈

[…] [Hyprland] is made by a transphobe and a large part of the community is also […]

Do you have a source?

I agree, through the lens of unfetted capitalism, but, with adequate regulation, I don’t think this is a necessary outcome. Although, perhaps “unfetted capitalism” isn’t capitalism?

[…] reaching for it as evidence that I might be confused is such a stretch […]

I suspect this statement is the source of all of this. When I sent this comment, I wasn’t trying to do some “gotcha”. I thought we were, in a sense, investigating together through documentation to try an find the right answer to the question. From my perspective, you provided an idea of what it could be, and I was trying to work with you to narrow down if that was for sure what we were looking for by providing some documentation that I came across. I wasn’t trying to insult your intelligence, or belittle you or your help. I simply thought we were brainstorming together.

[…] you replied to it 9 times. […]

I personally try to keep my responses atomic to the topic.

[…] It’s too late to complain about it now.

I’m not complaining, I just didn’t understand what the point was that you were trying to make.

[…] a authoritative-looking post […]

What do you mean by this exactly? Is it synonymous with your usage of “objective resource”?

It reads like you intend for your post to be an objective resource for others to use, but then fall back to it being good enough for your subjective purpose when questioned about it.

First, what do you exactly mean by “objective resource”? Second, what makes you think that it’s intended to be an “objective resource”? Are you saying that my use of citations gives you that impression?

If […] I didn’t think your second follow-up question was disingenuous […]

For clarity, it wasn’t intended to be disingenuous. I apologize if I gave you that impression. I’m always trying to improve how I interact with others.

That was never my argument. I think you know this. […] Being reluctant to answer any more questions about a topic doesn’t mean I was wrong to provide an initial answer. It just means my bandwidth has been exceeded. […]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. When I read this:

I don’t even use Lemmy, so - in my opinion - you’re asking the wrong question to the wrong person.

I interpreted it to litterally mean that I shouldn’t ask you questions about Lemmy because you don’t use it. I interpret your statement that you don’t use Lemmy to mean that you are less likely to have knowledge about Lemmy because you don’t use it.

At any rate, this is moot, as I mentioned above that I cannot know, prior to you telling me, what your experience is. And furthermore, I didn’t ask you anything. You volunteered an answer.

Noted! Thank you for clarifying 😊 Perhaps this link that you provided in another comment ^[1] would be more accurate to what the server does now?