It’s the only CMS that runs on a classic AMP stack which is still the standard with cheap web hosters. And since everyone and their dog is using it, you can easily find support and ready-to-use plugins for almost anything.
In the car world, WordPress is your plain old petrol car that just runs, can easily be refuelled and you can get anything repaired at every other street corner. That’s why it is still so widespread.
Ghost runs on NodeJS which isn’t available at most cheap webhosters. Also it doesn’t do traditional blog things like pingbacks, trackbacks or webmentions.
BearBlog can’t be self-hosted at all - it says so right on their GitHub’s README.
WriteFreely is a Go binary that - again - isn’t supported on most cheap hosters. Also I can’t seem to find anything about it supporting pingbacks, trackbacks or webmentions. It seems to be more like a one-user Mastodon instance.
RCS dates back to 2007/2008 when it was still called lots of other names. (E.g. Joyn) And since then, not many cell providers adopted it. For all other providers (and those still sitting on an old version of RCS), communication will happen via Google-servers. It basically is a proprietary service under the disguise of a public standard. Especially because of this I’d rather use “proprietary” encrypted chats with it, so Google doesn’t get a copy of all my texts.
RCS at this point is just another Google messenger. And officially unencrypted as well. At least Google recently implemented encryption on top of it and it looks like Apple will adopt it as well.
Back when BlackBerry and their unified inbox (all messages from email, AOL, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, etc. in one single list of messages) was still a thing - did people get bullied because of their choice of messenger?
Yeah, the link is completely mangled. Looks like it was supposed to be this:
I’m sorry, but if somebody decides to browse their pr0n and scat alts while they’re at work and/or eating… that’s on them.
Your rhetoric reeks of alt-right, I guess you’re “inconvenienced” by reserved parking spots, and for inclusive language, and want to “get rid of them” too?
And this is how you demonstrate that you’re not interested in continuing this discussion. Thanks for the entertainment, though. :)
So, you’re saying these traumatised people need to find ways to manage public TV and newspapers, but on Mastodon everybody else is supposed to accommodate for them and add CWs?
Again, the people that might(!) profit from the CWs are a minuscule amount compared to the people inconvenienced by them. And, as the linked study explains, they even seem to make things worse. So my point is: Just get rid of them. According to that study, that might even be beneficial to these traumatised people.
Then how did these traumatised people ever watch the news on TV or read a newspaper where there are no CWs? How did they take part in discussions on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc.? And how are they supposed to work through their trauma when they never get confronted with it?
If they are okay with “some things”, they’d have to open each article behind a very generic CW-description anyways. What’s the purpose of the CW then?
Why do these snowflakes just not filter the content like normal people? Most apps support this. Why does everybody else have to click away the CW just because a minuscule fraction of people might get irritated?
That’s stupid. Those pixels on a screen can’t hurt anyone. And if you think otherwise, you should seek professional help instead of expecting from everyone else to adjust to your mental issues.
What’s next? A “CW: Dog” so snowflakes that like cats don’t feel offended?
Yeah, I get pretty stressed out when people put CWs on stupid things like “CW: Food”.
Google, Bing, and a plethora of others.
No, that’s stupid. They don’t get anything from keeping that from you. And the main source of frustration comes from luggage handlers that are usually employed by the airports and not the airlines.
When they don’t give a damn, you won’t get your luggage. Like in this video where they insisted the luggage is still at a different airport. Because that’s what the computer said. And nobody looked for themselves which would’ve easily shown that somebody clearly forgot to do the arrival scan.
It clearly says:
These limits allow for nearly all types of lithium batteries used by the average person in their electronic devices.
This is in general for carry-on and checked luggage. And then there’s the other paragraph about Lithium Ion batteries needing to go into the carry-on.
No, they were trying to ban them (from checked luggage) because they are powered by a “Lithium” battery and airlines confused them with Lithium-Ion batteries. The latter ones are indeed forbidden in checked luggage.
I miss my SonyEricsson P910i
No need for reverse engineering - it has already been done: https://github.com/RhetTbull/osxphotos