A rare good move that sounds like a bad one (from what I’m seeing in the article)

Lol, exactly.

The phone goes beyond being just a BlackBerry dupe, however, by innovating in other areas. For instance, its clever “Signal Light” feature offers a light-up button on the side of the phone that can be customized with different colors and light patterns to indicate when you’ve received messages from certain people, groups, or apps.

Oh sweet summer child.

Nice, we’re not crazy 😜

Here’s what it looks like on the Lemmy web interface:

https://lemmy.world/post/43511228

What are you using to post links? This is at least the second post of yours I’ve seen that isn’t a link, just a picture.

Has the accuracy of the snapshots actually changed based on this edit? After all, if it’s factual information being presented…

Yes! Quite literally, yes. They’re supposed to be an archive of what is on other sites. It doesn’t matter if the original site was, right, wrong, complete, incomplete, accurate, inaccurate, factual, unfactual, etc. If they change things, they’re editorializing and are no longer an archive, they’re new content - which is not the purpose people use them for.

I do agree that it raises the issue of what other modifications there may be,

That’s literally the point. It doesn’t matter how much you “understand the reasoning” (though you also think it’s childish and don’t agree with the actions). You can use it if you want to, no one is stopping you. The point is Wikipedia can’t trust it as a source of archived data and has every right to ban it.

That’s inappropriate, childish, and unprofessional. It makes them untrustworthy for citations. There are better ways of handling it.

If altering snapshots for a grudge isn’t your definition of “behaving poorly” for a site archiving the state of the Internet, then you must not think they have to be an accurate source of information. If they’re not an accurate source of information, then Wikipedia has no obligation to allow them to be used in citations, and they should remove such citations.

It sounds like archive.today is behaving poorly. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn’t exactly “big money”. If you know different on either front, can you please explain. Otherwise your comments are meaningless.

It isn’t clear from the article how they knew which account was associated with the individual such that they could proactively contact the RCMP after the shooting.

You can still install the drivers, you just don’t get them through windows update. I hate when windows update touches my drivers without my permission, so this sounds like a win-win.

“December
January
February
Who the fuck even knows!?”

Did you read the article? It’s about money and risk because of the war. It isn’t some altruistic thing because they care about people’s lives.

Thanks. I’m not write sure why this whole conversation is even happening…

inane [ɪˈneɪn]

adjective

1. lacking sense or meaning; silly:

   “don’t badger people with inane questions”

Also, the original article had a perfectly fine title. It’s pretty standard when posting to keep the title of the original article you’re linking to instead of editorializing it, unless you’re specifically going to fix something and note that.

Here, let me help you: copy, paste.

Your comment was inane, which is why I gave the “no, you”.

It’s missing key information, and without that information the title doesn’t make sense, and kind of isn’t as interesting. Now read your comment as if I wrote it back to you.

Why did you change the title?

Article title is: Electric hydrofoil ferry completes record 160-mile voyage using standard fast chargers