Wedge

I wish.

I've spent a couple of days trying to unwind, playing some games, I have even briefly attempted to write some code but ended up spending an evening railing at a stupid problem caused by a stupid library having a stupid undocumented hidden internal limit that when exceeded causes a stupid error that seemingly has nothing to do with the call that is made.

This is a lot of what frustrates me about computer programming. It's all deterministic which means that I should be able to make a change and understand the consequences of that change in the places it affects. Except increasingly I'm finding that changing one thing breaks things that seemed to be unrelated, and it's frustrating me that I can't keep up with it. I didn't get into programming to play whack-a-mole.

I would also note that recently I've spent some time re-evaluating why I got into programming, and the otherwise simply joy of making things isn't there so much these days; I remember when I could make something in an afternoon and it would work. These days I can't build anything in under two days and spend even longer fighting with it.

ReCAPTCHA sucks anyway, but there you go.

I do have some half-done plugins on my PC, but I think I announced every plugin in the repo as it currently stands.

I seem to recall that's why I kept it separate (that's certainly why SMF keeps it separate)

I honestly don't remember. It was made a long time ago and even though I gave everyone access I half thought no-one would ever look, heh.

Go nuts. I gave everyone write permission to the repo.

Odds are it's out of date and needs more of an overhaul anyway - think about it, if it's old enough to use loadBlock(), odds are it's out of date elsewhere...

OK, here's the deal from my perspective: I see absolutely no reason to unapprove a message.

Deletion the way we've talked about it has much the same effect but without the complications attached to it - you get to remove the post from general visibility, but leave it around for moderators - and it's obvious that a message has gone (something not currently obvious in either context)That particular permission is a remnant of the old setup, because I don't want post moderation to be tied to the obscure permissions setup in SMF which is why I designed the moderation rules setup - that's the whole point, because the old permissions setup is so messed up. Note that it is entirely a separate thing to the above.

In the old setup, post_unapproved_posts is the permission one assigns to users *instead of* the reply permission, so you have to not issue the reply permission and use this one.

The only reason it's still present (instead of using totally moderation filters) is because I couldn't yet figure out an efficient way to suggest to users that they might be moderated (as having that permission instead of the proper reply one would do)

But it is entirely separate to moderation being applied, or not.

Oh, yes. It's been discussed at SMF that the 'hide online' doesn't hide last online time for users, this is an extension of the same idea.

There is still an issue, though, regardless of whether hide online is enabled or not - it's still logged as to what they're doing and it's still shown to admins, so even if 'hide online' is on, it's not hidden from admins. Whether that's a privacy issue is also questionable, of course.I know that. But can you imagine anything else that's going to get any number of sites to actually consider what they're doing about privacy? Sites have shown more than once that they don't care - and if there's no penalty to being lax, they'll keep doing it. This law, however badly implemented, is at least understanding that privacy is being eroded in favour of companies who want to monetise you. And it IS getting sites to consider how they're doing things, the fact that we're having this debate is proof of that.Yup. I take much the same view, but I can also argue about my cookies because I know what all of them do ;)That is also the same understanding I have, though you'll note the reply from the ICO is a bit vague on that point.Yay, more legislation from lawmakers who don't understand the workings of the law. For example, the recent ruling in favour of the lady who was bullied on Facebook. What are the odds the people who were bullying were feeding FB fake data?