bleepbloopbop [they/them]

The key difference is the use of malted barley/hops for fermentation in production. If those are used (and probably some other requirements met, like being made in a brewery?) it can be classified as a Malt Beverage (a category that includes beer), putting it under TTB (who now regulate alcohol and tobacco moreso than ATF), and the correspondingly lax labeling requirements.

Most NA beer/Seltzers fall under this, and (my speculation from this point on) you probably won't see many N/A versions of the canned mixed drinks or vodka seltzers because they'd have to comply with a whole different set of rules since the NA version wouldn't be a Malt Beverage. Its possible that the Athletic/Partake examples you cite simply didn't see any benefit to getting certified as a brewery or added the nutrition label voluntarily, or were required to because they made some specific nutritional claim elsewhere on the can.

If coca cola wanted to make what was basically a soda, but integrate a fermented malt/hop component, I suppose they could maybe get away with that. But I think the TTB would shoot them down if it was a miniscule amount of malt/hop, and honestly I'm not convinced that it'd be at all worth the effort, since the facilities used would be regulated as breweries, and the formula would be subject to TTB approval, all just to avoid a nutrition label?

Another fun fact, it seems like beverages with no significant amount of any nutrient, vitamin, or mineral could probably get away without a label too. Not sure how hard that would be to achieve without just making it water though lol

See Slide 22 here: https://www.ttb.gov/images/pdfs/TTB_Boot_Camp_for_Brewers-_Nontraditional_Products.pdf

And the linked rulings from TTB: https://www.ttb.gov/images/pdfs/rulings/2008-3.pdf and FDA: https://www.fda.gov/media/90473/download

Nope. I highlighted the app only because it's an existing, working solution that an individual can use today. It is not a great solution for obvious reasons. I for one only browse via lemmy-ui, so that app does precisely nothing for me. My intention wasn't to poo-poo possible solutions, but to push back on your entitled framing implying that it was such an easy problem that it must have been an intentional omission to leave it out. Other users had no problem conversing with me in good faith and not being so hostile. I agree it's an issue, and so do the Lemmy devs, it just hasn't been solved yet.

I don't care about your contribution to the thread, I mean you aren't contributing to Lemmy, the codebase, and so my patience for such a level of hostility and complaining is low.

Why so hostile? I don't see you contributing.

Anyhow, other users have provided context on where discussions are taking place on how to improve the issues you brought up. It's not a static legacy codebase, but nor do ideas spring to life without dev effort.

Arch ARM is for some reason forced to be a separate, second class project, and ARM-only pkgbuilds are systematically removed from the AUR. It's shortsighted and stupid. However I've still had decent luck with arch on arm (Danctnix, specifically)

I never got used to doing wq over a simple :x

I get that you can write and quit separately, and I do it when needed, but 95% of the time, there's no need

same. It was long enough ago that I have no real recollection of why but I thought they were good. I even saw the movies. I guess kids aren't very picky

I'm guessing someone with enough familiarity could say this about one of the John Green books' movie adaptations, but I haven't seen any (?) of the movies and haven't read the books since I was a teen so

You assume I'm not contributing ... based on what?

Based on the fact I haven't seen your handle contribute to the github, which I follow relatively closely. Not to mention from your question's phrasing, and lack of research beforehand, I could have surmised as much. A contributor probably would have been able to find the relevant discussion on the github and read it rather than just badmouthing the software in a post.

I agree, RobotToaster thought through their reply and came with ideas that might actually work, at least in their second comment, not just complaining "why isn't this already the way I want it??"

what's really dangerous is if you do a bunch of force quits in a row with :q! and then you start to get muscle memory for that and accidentally lose a whole document you were working on

Guess you're right. I remember seeing one in theater, which I thought was the second one, but looking it up now that was 2006 (god how was that 18 years ago lmao) and they never made the second one. 100 million budget, made 250 million at the box office, I guess that's considered a flop. (Edit: yeah I guess it was a flop in the US box office, the majority of that was worldwide)

https://github.com/brunonova/nautilus-admin

This is unmaintained, so it may not work with the latest ubuntu, but it is an extension to the default ubuntu file manager that does some of what you want

As for your title question, unfortunately ubuntu/gnome don't seem to make this easy. On some DEs you can just right click and go find the shortcut properties sorta like on windows. Others have noted some good reasons why GUI apps shouldn't run as root, but you're right that sometimes it's necessary, or simply the easiest/most expedient way to do things.

You can accomplish what you ask using a little shell script though, which you could bind to a keyboard shortcut or something. I may elaborate further but basically:

readlink /proc/"$( xprop _NET_WM_PID | sed 's/_NET_WM_PID(CARDINAL) = //')"/exe

and then clicking on the window you want to ID will attempt to identify the binary it's running. then you could either display it in a popup using zenity, or write it directly to the clipboard using xclip (or wl-copy I think for wayland distros)

I really like setting up little shortcut scripts like this with zenity for user input, and usually the notification tray or clipboard for output

oh hey its me

Though over the winter it was decidedly not well maintained, longest its ever been, etc. I kind of get weirdly less dysphoric about just letting things go vs. actively cultivating something I don't necessarily want or like.

depends on the context, arm isn't as consistent (or at least consistently supported) of a platform to build for as x86. ARM server? single board computer? (which one?) Apple Silicon? other?

how exactly would you propose that instance-agnostic links like this work? How should it behave, and how would you overcome the centralization, privacy, security, etc. concerns that it raises?

Because I can see a lot of different answers here and each have some unique challenges. But I agree, it is annoying to work around.

On android, there is this: https://android.izzysoft.de/repo/apk/dev.zwander.lemmyredirect

Which solves it from the client side

You'll run into issues and not many people will be able to help. Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu seem to be the popular distros rn for most people.

Agree with the broader conclusion that a first time linux user should probably avoid gentoo, arch, whatever, but its not because nobody will be able to help you, more just that the expected level of polish is a bit less.

It isn't considered a huge inconvenience to have to use the CLI or edit a config file by arch users, but for ubuntu especially they are more bent on building something that "just works" for most people (with the tradeoff being it's a commercially exploited product, and the innards of GNOME and the like tend to be more of a black box and less tweakable than say, a tiling WM)

But if you do want to dive in and learn how more of the internals work and how to configure things at a lower level, you will find a lot of help with issues, and very detailed documentation for a lot more things in Arch, vs Ubuntu. I find the ubuntu community online to be sort of a middle ground between the detailed technical help I've gotten from Arch communities, and the "here's some magic steps that worked for me, no idea why" type of thing that is prevalent on windows support communities.

Which isn't to say ubuntu people aren't helpful, but the critical mass of users isn't the only thing that matters, it also helps if the users are knowledgeable, and friendly (some arch people fail at this, though I've lucked out and really not had any bad experiences)

it's unnecessarily large but it has great safety features!

how exactly [...]

Sure, UUIDs are a useful tool. What of it? If I put a UUID in a comment, it isn't a link. This doesn't answer my question or solve the problem. The link has to go somewhere on the web, or use a custom protocol specifier and be handled by a client application or something installed on the user's machine. If you go the client app route, many/maybe even most people use lemmy in a browser at least some of the time, and this will never get the full adoption required to make it standard. If you go the web link route, then you have concerns like "who owns the domain/service that does the redirecting" (ie matrix.to), can they be trusted, how can they automatically tell which instance to send users to without privacy concerns?

If you're proposing overhauling the whole architecture of lemmy to use consistent UUID-based IDs for comments, posts, etc. across all instances, that could probably work but there are some edge cases especially with malicious actors, and it would be a huge undertaking.

A better idea, IMO, is to let client apps/frontends handle the translation, so that regardless of what instance the comment is linked on, it is translated to the correct local link for local users (unless the instances aren't federated), since there's already the fedilink button to then see the post on the original user's instance, but there are probably edge cases and performance issues I'm not thinking of/privy to, and its still a non-trivial fix, which is why it hasn't happened yet. I'm sure the devs would welcome such a change if a PR were submitted with the kinks worked out, but it isn't on their current priorities list afaik

its the other way around for those people: they have a beard because they stopped shaving, not because they wanted a nice looking beard.

tbh there is a part of me that resents this "ew you grow facial hair and don't shave around the edges to create sharp lines" view though. Its like women feeling they have to shave their legs or pits, it's BS and people shouldn't be judged for literally just how their body naturally is. Its not like there's a legitimate sanitary reason for shaving legs or necks.

wellllllll

I don't think I've ever had to redo more than 15 mins of work due to this mistake, but it's a dangerous road lol