Quacksalber

I wanted to ask if it was possible, in any way, to have the convenience of just having to sync a single passwords file, while also having the security of putting more sensitive login credentials behind a different or additional passwords?

On my computer, I usually have KeePassXC unlocked for the entirety of being logged in. So if my computer were to be compromised, the attacker would not only get access to relatively unimportant accounts, like this Lemmy account, but also highly important ones, like my email or bank login credentials. So I'd like to split my passwords file into multiple "files", where the unimportant logins are permanently unlocked for convenience, while the more sensitive login credentials remain encrypted until I actually need them.

However, I also am fucking lazy and I know that I won't be able to keep up with the hassle of keeping multiple passwords files synced. So I wanted to ask if it is possible to keep the convenience of having just a single file that you need to sync, while also making use of the security that splitting up the passwords file brings.

Currently I use KeePassXC on my desktop and KeePass2Android on my phone, but I'd be willing to switch to other software, if the benefits are there.

After having spent some time on Lemmy and learning of the intricacies of the different Lemmy instances, I think the landing page for the Lemmyverse could do with some streamlining. I remember that back when I joined, the only information I used to decide on an instance to join was the user count, the signup policy and the instance name. Now, coming from the instance with the best name, I can't say that I've regretted my choice, but for new people looking to join Lemmy, crucial information that would help them join the instance best suited for them is still missing.

To provide that information, I want to suggest the creation of multiple categories, in which instance owners are encouraged to describe their instance. Instances that provide a description for each category are then ranked higher on the join-lemmy.org website.

The following categories would, in my opinion, help new users decide on an instance to join:

Content Policy
This category could describe what kind of content the instance wants to specialize in. Whether that be sports, games, specific sports teams or games, NSFW content, meme content, etc.

Signup Policy
The website already shows whether an application needs to be filled out, but it doesn't show what is expected of the applicant. A category describing what exactly the instance would like to see in their new users would help those users decide, if that instance is for them or not.
As an example, an instance focussed on a certain language could inform users, that they expect an application in that language.

Community creation Policy
Here, instances could describe what rules they have around community creation. Small instances could, for example, clarify in this category, that they would only want to host niche communities without much traction at most. Other servers could specify that they would only want to host unique communities, not copies of or communities closely related to communities already existing on other instances.

Federation Policy
Here instance owners could clarify their stance on what other instances they are willing or not willing to federate with. To give an example, instances could describe their stance on federating with other instances hosting NSFW content, possibly illegal content (lemmy.world and /c/piracy), overly political content, and so on and so forth.

Lastly, some statistics could be added to show the health of the instance: Active user to inactive user ratio, active user to report ratio, active user/report to mod action ratio, community engagement ratio, uptime, server software version and so on.

With these categories, I can say that if I were to join the Lemmyverse today, I'd be able to make a much more informed decision on what instance to join.

I'd like to use a mod that allows me to create crafting bills that only trigger when I have more than X resources in storage. As an example, if I set up a bill that requires 4 Components, I'd like to set a limit of 50 Components, so that items only get crafted, if I have more than 50 Components in storage. Does anyone know of a mod that allows this constraint to be set?

Seine bisher schärfste Kritik an Israels Vorgehen im Gazastreifen hatte Joe Biden geübt, als keine Kameras oder Mikrofone im Raum waren. Vor Unterstützern seiner demokratischen Partei hatte Biden laut Augenzeugen gesagt, dass nach dem Angriff der Hamas am 7. Oktober der Großteil der Welt hinter Israel gestanden habe.

Aber nun sei Israel dabei, die Unterstützung durch "willkürliche Bombardements" zu verlieren. Die Formulierung sorgte in den USA auch deshalb für Aufsehen, weil willkürliche Bombardements nach internationalem Recht als Kriegsverbrechen gewertet werden können.

Whenever I try to respond to Mastodon comments with this account, I only get an endlessly spinning loading circle. From my lemmy.world backup account however I can send the response no problem. Any clue why that is?

I'd like to ask for @TheDude to make a server-wide announcement, visible to all members of this instance, that a binding vote about defederation is currently taking place.

Without knowing what the Lemmy UI allows, I was hoping for a text similar to the one informing new users that email verification is currently enabled. Here is what I would like the announcement to entail:

"A binding vote to defederate from another instance is currently taking place in /c/TheAgora. Should the vote be accepted, no users of sh.itjust.works will be able to access the defederated instance or interact with users of that defederated instance anywhere on Lemmy. Should the vote fail, the instance to be defederated remains federated, its content may still be shown on the home feed of sh.itjust.works and the users of that instance may still participate in discussion on this instance."

I am of the very strong opinion, that no vote should be binding, unless it was announced early enough to all members of this instance! This vote will have instance-wide consequences, the fact that it is taking place needs to be broadcasted beyond this community!

Edit: fix typos (again)

As a more casual user that has chosen ShitJustWorks as his new home instance, I don't feel inclined to participate daily in the internal politics of this instance. Yet (semi) daily, the Agora seems to vote on issues that will affect me directly, such as defederating from instances the thread-starters deem to be harmful, something I am fundamentally opposed to as long as the block functionailty is sufficient to filter content you really don't want to see.

I suspect that many more people on this instance feel the same way, not wanting to participate daily in internal politics that is, or aren't even aware of the voting power the Agora holds. After all, the fediverse explorer currently shows over 6000 users belonging to this instance, with over 2000 active monthly. Yet the most commented-on voting thread in here has merely 200 votes, so only 10% of users will change the rules for all users in this instance.

I fear a 'tyranny of the active few', to put it in hyperbolic terms, that has the potential to drive away the majority of people.

But I also recognize the usefulness of the Agora and as such, I would like to suggest some voting rules:

• At any point in time, there will be just one voting thread open on the Agora where people get to decide on issues that will affect how the instance is run in the future, pinned at the very top.
• In this thread, up to X number of top-level comments will represent the actual issues to vote on. I suggest 10 as the maximum number of different votes in such a voting thread.
• Voting will run for a full month, to allow maximum participation.
• Over the month, people can create discussion threads for issues and preliminary voting threads to include those issues in the main voting thread. The X most popular issues will be voted on in the next month's main voting thread.

By limiting the number of issues to vote on, bringing them together in one thread and giving ample time for users to participate in the voting, it will be easier for casual users to keep track on what is being voted on and foster a voting culture that is backed by the majoriry of this instance's users.