The dialog clearly warns you that if you have something to delete, it will be deleted, but it doesn't let you know if there is anything to delete.
That's not in itself a huge problem, but in this case it was compounded with the fact that the generic repo he was acting on is named inconsistently for users vs organizations, and he had just done it on his user account. If I'm reading correctly, a user's profile readme repo is `<user>/<user>`, while for organizations it is `<org>/.github`, and, crucially, `<org>/<org>` is almost always going to be the core project for that org.
So yes, the warning says you will lose all stars on the project, but in the moment it would have seemed (to a fallible human brain who was in a user-space context) that this was the right repo, whereas a "you will lose 54k stars" message would have broken the user out of that space.
There is a difference between using UI tweaks (color/size/motion) to call out information, and actually displaying that information.
Right? As in, "this will affect 0 stars" vs "this will affect 54,000 stars" is an informational difference. Calling out "this will affect all stars" (without specifying a number) doesn't break a user out of doing it to the wrong repo, since that message is the same in both cases.
The other thing they could do is make user/organization structure for that profile readme the same - as he mentioned, he had just done it on his personal account, which is of the form `<user>/<user>`, so doing `httpie/httpie` for the organization made contextual/autopilot sense in the moment.
Ignoring one-off bash scripts as needed, the standout examples of mine are a simple site for doing a specific type of date math in a bookmarkable fashion [0], as well as a webapp for my D&D 3.5 characters (pre-DNDBeyond days) [1]. As far as I know I am the sole user of both.
I used to run a couple blogs, but after 5+ years of not updating I replaced it with a basic calling card site. Just hard-coded HTML with a black-and-white Bootstrap on it.
I use a Keebio Iris [0] which is similar to a stripped-down ErgoDox. Careful part selection (especially keycaps) could have one for <$150, though you do have to solder it together yourself. I enjoyed the experience.
I find Steam to be the least-onerous (phone-based) 2FA tool I use - it pops up automatically when needed, and the codes are only 5 characters with a mix of letters and numbers, which I somehow find much easier to remember and type.
Granted, I don't know if those features involve security sacrifices, and I'm sure I'd get annoyed if I needed a separate app for every tool, but the user experience is more pleasant there for me.
Right, but they're general police (eg, they also handle non-traffic enforcement such as drugs), right?
I believe GP's point was not about "specific enforcement of traffic laws by police" but "law enforcement agencies who are specifically charged with traffic".
True, they are full law enforcement but assigned traffic duty.
"law enforcement agencies who are specifically charged with traffic"
Are there really any that are? I didn't think that was common, even in cities. In fact, many cities are issuing guidance to not enforce basic traffic violations to prevent pretextual stops.
The synth is free. Paid levels seem to be mostly for skins/presets/support. There are more wavetables in the paid version, though I don't know enough about wavetable synthesis to know how much that matters.
I haven't registered and downloaded the software from their website but I doubt it would come with any licensing or OSS mention. The marketing doesn't mention OSS either.
There's at least one thread asking for clarification on the subject which, as far as I can tell, is not formaly answered.
The repo you linked is 13 months old but it's informative nonetheless:
> Do not distribute the presets that come with the free version of Vital. They're under a separate license that does not allow redistribution.
So my best guess is that the author is granting himself an exemption and distributing that software as a closed source software. Which is legal, it certainly helps that there's only one author.
If we really wanted to know what's going on exactly, we should download the software from their website. If it's advertised as being OSS and under the GPL, we should ask for a copy of the source code of the distributed software, as provided by the GPL.
It's universally accepted that aggregating free software with non-free data does not make the software non-free. The explanation in the repo about the licensing is correct and perfectly okay from an OSS perspective.
The software's copyright holder cannot infringe his own copyright by distributing the software from his own website, even if he also offers a GPL license. If he were accepting contributions from other people you might have a case, but he says he isn't.
The GP isn't saying that the author is making the software unfree by mixing it with commercial software.
The GP is saying that author is distributing that software as unfree with a different license since as copyright holder, the author can do whatever they wish. QT, for example, is distributed as GPL or with a commercial license.
Which is to say the GP is correct this is possible and it's a sleazy maneuver.
Which is unfortunate since I actually am playing with Linux audio software and I'd love to find a good free software synthesizer. LMMS is OK but this does seem pretty impressive.
Oh, because the distributed binaries aren't really open-source because they're made from a different version of the source? That's true, and it might come back to bite the author.
What do you think of Vitalium? I don't know enough about synthesizers to have an informed opinion.
I'm only getting my feet wet on synthesizers but it gives the impression that it has a lot of cool and unique features, even compared to commercial synthesizers or LMMS, the synthesizer I've looked at the most .
The problem is these people saying they're open source then playing game pisses me off much more than if they said they were commercial with a free version.
So I'm torn on trying them. And I can't get the github code to compile on Ubuntu 20.
That's not in itself a huge problem, but in this case it was compounded with the fact that the generic repo he was acting on is named inconsistently for users vs organizations, and he had just done it on his user account. If I'm reading correctly, a user's profile readme repo is `<user>/<user>`, while for organizations it is `<org>/.github`, and, crucially, `<org>/<org>` is almost always going to be the core project for that org.
So yes, the warning says you will lose all stars on the project, but in the moment it would have seemed (to a fallible human brain who was in a user-space context) that this was the right repo, whereas a "you will lose 54k stars" message would have broken the user out of that space.