That’s because, currently, the community stats that you see in the sidebar are only from your instance – community stats are currently not federated. Afaik, federated community stats are going to be implemented in 0.19.

It is.

The first two lines of the for loop,

byte upper_byte = input_bin >> 8;
byte lower_byte = input_bin & 0x00FF;

don’t really accomplish anything. The first line is bit shifting to the right 8, and then you just bitwise and it resulting in the same thing. For example, starting with input_bin:

1000 0000 0000 0000
>> 8
0000 0000 1000 0000
& 0xFF
0000 0000 1000 0000

So, every time you go through a cycle of the for loop, you’ll just start with the same values in upper_byte, and lower_byte. To sequentially output each shifted value, you’ll instead want something like:

output_value = 0b1
for i = 1 to 16:
    latch(low)
    shift_out(output_value)
    latch(high)
    output_value = output_value << 1

That is, if I interpereted correctly that you want the shift registers to output the following:

output_count, upper_shift_register, lower_shift_register
1, 00000000, 00000001
2, 00000000, 00000010
3, 00000000, 00000100
.
.
.
16, 10000000, 00000000

Note: Lemmy has a bug where it doesn’t format some symbols correctly, so the left angle bracket gets formatted as <. The same issue exists for the right angle bracket, the ampersand, and I would presume others.

Would you not want to shift out the upper byte first? I could be misinterpreting your setup.

I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.

Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.

No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.

When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,

And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin.

In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.

Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?

Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.

You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.

I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms”, I did not mean to infer “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another”. The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.

pay a child to work in a mine

I don’t believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.

schedule workers for 80+ hours a week

If one consents, then there should be no issue.

drive without speed limits

Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them – this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

use as much water out of the local river as desired

This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).

dump waste into that same river

This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.

sell unregulated, untested medicine

I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it’s efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug’s efficacy vs. mandating it’s safety.

[source] Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1962 to require that new drugs be shown effective, as well as safe, to obtain FDA approval.

It doesn’t work for almost anyone

You don’t believe that upholding, and maximising individual rights, and freedoms is a net positive?

It’s very very useful when looking for bugs to at the very least have a central search, I’ve encountered issues before which are filed against a completely different app than the one I’m encountering it in (usually because the issue is actually in a library that both use), which I would have missed otherwise. Having a single database also allows then moving bugs between projects in cases such as that without having to recreate it and linking the old one to the new one.

Perhaps a middle ground would be to organize individual repositories under an organization, like on github, where the organization has a global bug tracker, as well as each project.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that, it does work well for a lot of projects when used as an all in one package to have all development on, especially when it’s a public instance for many different projects such as GitHub.

Oh I wasn’t necessarily accusing Github, or any other service of being bloated, I was making more of a general statement.

the nice thing about it is that it’s a central bug database

I’m honestly not sure that a central database for bugs is the best of ideas. The issues for a project should, ideally, be tied to, and integrated with that specific project. I think that it encourages more community input – people can find the components that they like, and delve into that specific component, and its community without needing to worry about anything else in the ecosystem. It may be too overwhelming for someone to have to interact with everything from every other project in the ecosystem, instead of just what they are interested in.

I’m still not entirely sure what problem Sup is trying to solve. Matrix already exists. Matrix supports E2EE through the signal protocol, as well as native federation, and it bridges to almost any existing chat service. Matrix is inherently less secure, overall, than Signal, but I don’t see how Sup would fix this either – for that I’ll have to wait and see. As for using one’s fedi account to sign-in, that’s mostly just up to supporting OAuth, and not some feature that would be unique to the app.

I do like the more modular approach that they took – many services unfortunately go the route of trying to make an “everything app” which often leads to bloat. This is of course not to accuse Gitea, Gitlab, Github, etc. of bloat, I’m just saying, in general, I do understand why they took this approach, and I can certainly appreciate it. I will say that, compared to the usual git services (Gitlab, Github, Gitea, etc.) it is severely lacking polish.

So KDE at the minimum could just have hub + git + lists (for patches), and keep Bugzilla as the single bug tracker, for example.

I personally despise bugzilla. It’s one of my least favorite parts about contributing to KDE. I personally find it very unintuitive, and messy. The UX of the service, on the whole, is not a pleasure.

I’m mostly just asking out of curiosity.

I’m not familiar with Sourcehut. Why do you recommend it specifically?

Has there been any discussion around possibly switching over to the afformentioned alternative services?

Well their instance is open though, it’s just that the official Gitlab instance has more features that aren’t released in the OSS repository of the Gitlab software.

I wasn’t intending to accuse KDE of using proprietary software! I apologize if it came across this way. My gripe is primarily with what you specified regarding GitLab itself.