Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@hazelnot There's a subset of Dutch people who speak very good English, pretty much indistinguishable from native speakers, yeah - but they're not really the majority. The majority have the typical "stone coal English" accent and weird sentence constructions.

Given the demographic of Dutch people who use YouTube, it's therefore very suspicious when *none* of the commenters have those linguistic tells. There should be at least *some* who speak imperfect English...

@Riedler Personally, my suspicion would be a trollfarm; the comments are not consistent enough for all of them to be clearly repeating the same video's worth of talking points, and they talk about a fairly wide variety of urban planning topics in NL, all of which are relatively obscure.

I think there would be a pretty clear motive; walkable city design has been seeing a surge in popularity lately, and a lot of this is based on past projects and research from the Netherlands, and so it would make a lot of sense for the car industry - with their decades-long documented history of effective propaganda campaigns - to start pushing back against that with misinformation, because it's a threat to their economic dominance (which is kind of the point).

I don't have any more concrete evidence than circumstantial evidence for this, though, but it would be consistent with said industry's existing track record.

@efi @godotengine An open-source developer who knows what happens to maintainers' motivation and joy in their work when people start hounding them across social media with personal demands.

@efi @godotengine The meme was a call for funding - see also the second post.

And no, that is not how any of this works, for *any* open-source project, and is honestly quite rude. Developers do not *owe* you workflow improvements, and it is absolutely important to be constructive and not unnecessarily abrasive, in how you suggest workflow improvements or provide (critical) feedback.

As for the last point: just because the team can do one thing, doesn't mean they can just as easily do another thing, because different tasks aren't interchangeable - and there may well be very good reasons that they picked one thing rather than the other.

TL;DR: being a user of something does *not* entitle you to yelling at people that the thing you're using isn't perfect. If you want things to improve, then provide *constructive* feedback, and do so in the correct place (and for Godot, that is in the issue tracker, according to the site).

@dieweltist @SehrLesbisch@chaos.social Be aware that a lot of medication explicitly should not be put into the fridge either due to either humidity or too low temperatures.

@efi @godotengine I mean, that's your choice to make, just like it's generally anybody's choice what projects they feel are worth keeping alive. Even if I have my opinions about that, that's not what I'm criticizing here.

I just find it... kind of inappropriate to respond to a call for funding, to keep the project alive, with what's almost a demand to do something in a very specific way. It's already hard enough to keep *any* open-source project funded, and it's really not helpful to be posting spiky comments in response, *especially* not if the thing you are demanding would require more funding than you are likely to give them.

This would be different if Godot were committing some grievous offense, something that actively harms people, because being open-source doesn't exempt one from criticism. But come on, this is a disagreement about the contribution workflow.

@efi @godotengine ... because funding is not docs editing? How contributions are handled vs. how the bills are paid by people maintaining the engine are two entirely separate subjects.

@efi @godotengine How is that related to a request for funding?

@efi @godotengine This seems like kind of a weird comment to make here?

@Byte I think it's good it exists. I'm concerned about its use of C++ which, while understandable from a historical perspective of where it comes from, is really not a good choice for what's arguably the largest attack surface on a modern system.

(There are also some maintainability arguments to be made here, but trying to discuss that somehow always seems to end up in flamewars)

@someonetellmetosleep Sure. But that is comparing to a non-existent alternative - the antitrust ruling concerns their search engine and search advertising business, not their browser, so the chances of this resulting in a browser breakup are essentially nil.

Hence only bringing up the Firefox funding issue, and how I feel about the possibility of Mozilla going under - because that's simply the only impact this ruling is likely to have on the browser world.