Reading TDF's "side" of the story gives me firm confidence that Collabora was in fact in the right, here. Collabora seems to have the facts on their side, which is why TDF's account here is so vague and passive-aggressive and filled with FUD.
Yes, correct. When I clicked the link I was already welcomed by the welcome page (which is, for the most part, welcomed). But then why send me another email further welcoming me? I already feel welcomed! And don't give me any of that "because it works" BS (even though that is what you are going to say).
(cuu508, "you" in this instance does not mean you)
You said "can’t change". I observed that deciding you can't change something is self-fulfilling. Your argument from that point still relied on the assumption that you can't change it.
Before you decide not to care about something, you are supposed to make a deep assessment to see whether you can change it. It is only after you’ve determined that the thing can’t be changed that you can choose not to care about it.
Yes, of course. Do you prefer to die? Those are the only two alternatives, and a decision that you don't want one is a decision that you prefer the other.
No, there is no alternative. Everything eventually dies, so you better make peace with it. The only people who believe that they won't die are religious people who believe in an afterlife (which is a preposterous position) and the people who have their heads or whole bodies frozen because they think they are so special that the future will honor their contracts and revive them.
Both of these are bound to lead to the exact same outcome so it doesn't really matter what you believe but it may guide you to wiser decision while you are alive to accept reality absent proof to the contrary.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't want to exist in the future. I do. I have thought about it extensively, and there is literally no scenario in which I consider not-existing better than existing.
There is an essentially infinite amount of creativity and interesting complexity available in the richness of interactions with other people and the things people create. What, exactly, are you "horrified" about?
Minor nit: why does the rendered in-window text use a really awful pixelated font? It looks like what happens when a font gets rendered onto a pixel grid without any hinting or snapping.
It uses GNU unifont, which is a bitmap font. There could be a bug causing the text to get stretched a little - we had that on Windows prior to this release.
Intentional indeed. It is GNU Unifont - a 973KiB file that covers practically all of Unicode. In a bitmap font, platform independent, self contained, small. Practically all that SolveSpace strives to be.
Pixelated can sometimes look okay on screens it was designed for. But I think the pixelated look improves with hinting that helps snap it to stroke widths, rather than randomly jumping between 1 and 2 pixels depending on how it happened to line up with the pixel grid.
A good pixel font would be a vast improvement over this, though I'd still prefer something that scales well (and respects the DPI of my screen, and isn't too small compared to the menu font...).
Oh! This is very bad! It should not look like this.
I've tried Firefox, Chrome and Edge on Windows; Firefox and Chrome an Android phone and tablet and it renders correctly - like the desktop version.
What browser are you using? On what OS? Perhaps the web page is zoomed in/out in the browser? Scaling options in the browser? HiDPI screen with scaling?
Would you be willing to open an issue on GitHub with the details? Or just post them here.
Firefox, on Linux. Though I'd be genuinely surprised to hear the issue with scaling worked differently elsewhere.
Firefox is scaling its base size based on the screen, and then the page is scaled up further from there to have a readable font size. My base is 150% scaling, but the UI has comparably uneven strokes at many different scales and page sizes. (The strokes get less uneven the bigger they are, since at larger sizes there are more pixels to work with.)
Easy way to compare font scaling quality: At any scale, hitting one of the "change" links in the configuration menu brings up a browser UI element, using a font that looks great at any size.
Even the desktop version sometimes. If I open on one monitor and move to another with different scale factor. It seems Windows lies about window resolution.
Has been on HN a couple of times in the past, but it's worth a repost.
The takeaway: something isn't a security bug just because you can get a program to misbehave based on user input. It has to lead to a privilege escalation, letting the user do something they couldn't otherwise do (e.g. if the input might come from an untrusted source that couldn't directly just do the thing itself).
In one way it's potentially worse than talking to yourself. Some part of you might recognize that you need to talk to someone other than yourself; an LLM might make you feel like you've done that, while reinforcing whatever you think rather than breaking you out of patterns.
Also, LLMs can have more resources and do some "creative" enabling of a person stuck in a loop, so if you are thinking dangerous things but lack the wherewithal to put them into action, an LLM could make you more dangerous (to yourself or to others).
Or drops citation links into its response, but the citations are random things it searched for earlier that aren't related to the thing it's now answering.
Comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47604892 (in particular, the mention that Collabora was not in fact intending to leave) lend further credence.
reply