Kalcifer

Have you posted a suggestion on github?

There are existing issues on GitHub:

• Option to generate URL previews at the receiving client, not the server
• Consider making the sender generate url previews, as with e2e thumbnails

OmPLoYXUOIPhnGr5krVHtCI4knI0pbb4zO/7u4iEWtsBXQbEFOJQITsUYRtvd+9lQvbuKYgEF8tip5O7mZcvgFRNdE2jUR+IE9ewoi5prn7pNTx4+xKR5vgVpXYaixpLI1qMMA+iXD+XobZJRGz9nHi+vzcTMkyHD0X6UpS2GVYztqgghxyxkMhvneR2PtwnjJo/KUi5KAtD4Le/p6wAxS/SZHSzKJIS4vflTayYU/zfZhlc/ElDPy/hoZAeLmq3fWJDMQN5ZPIyS9/mMp+/CkIfRj/GvkDfI2+OdHW23WACezuMHBnvO4w2LPakLDasUKpeUx7bJrNdC1qBcDIDAg==

If you look at this documentation it outlines various methods of generating URL thumbnails. Essentially, a separate request from the client for only the URL is made to the server which then returns a thumbnail. It's an absolutely moronic design choice, if you ask me.

EDIT (2023-10-02T01:35Z): Do note that the link that I provided is for Synapse v1.37 -- Synapse is currently on v1.97. Curiously, the documentation for the new versions of Synapse have removed the sections talking about URL previews. I'm not sure what's up with that.

RT373YSQwMB+y28d7xm/Xybihcmx9jgkd4RskvPuoFQ3hapIv4exdmtMe+QxsVqos5odxTVuKAftj53zXFFQyD7MK0985zDvfKYjIj+b+8rNSAG0fArG2SXVBW0mLXqRnXiZXiknoPekyu7MKr1aD8k9DMQzCap60oNWmOLoCQXdmEetiEnhGL8zW2KR9P4MxtzxMzLzPWJyLmpLbXVJdxTmHFN32IvMHiyY29iJqZegmIuav0+IP2c3leGrJs75eGW2uWoj8J8VWWzflWfRRO3FwzJFRIvrptPN0osD0wMrgLJ4FYwXZQetIEJ99TxWvxqTYak90q6HxvVygOyHPw==

Indeed, it does. It can be overlooked, however. I added that info to my post, though. Thank you for the note.

AcN4ig5AQaP5RPDXd4zDkAmFvg+Xp65zI6i5ossToWdpV7Ad2r7s0UAn6TRKG5NbiBOvr+ZWk8fVS8abFcXGEmEp9axEG/BOxJVSMteDTjhf74fVmRbIxik8EpYR2FA5DXTK/r6nrxxiuTTak5kNUrSi2Bb4ebdFEEhrdikuDm68jjHiXsqOS2O4JYxUhhd0qrjnzaCAtiCr1KnqyR+9eEtUDv8nx8IvAnk/9EmzSnPxn5BinJYFjM3qEh3KYyqfY//d0brUQFkbKJmqn1KGdhmzZG7SUtZPsAozJSrVFHynavEwx6SIhxAbJYojQ10RjkYYXVQ10RNmB+NiPs1Zgg==

Perhaps the next emergent entity is not corporeal, but, instead, of the collective. A good example could be similar to what @[email protected] stated about how the movements of people in crowds are, on the "microscopic" scale, seemingly random, and unpredictable, but, on the "macroscopic" scale, can be predicted quite accurately. One could look at economies, traffic flow, entire nations, etc. as emergent entities that rely on our individual, autonomous interaction. A very interesting such example is outlined in this paper which explains how "Online communities featuring ‘anti-X’ hate and extremism" can be accurately modeled using "novel generalization of nonlinear fluid physics".

I have found that instances that do seem to modify the source code just use the existing "Code" link and simply point it to their own repo instead.

What I like about the free-ish markets

Pehaps, you may benefit from the term "competitive free market".

free market would punish bad actors

The free market punishing bad actors (depending on how we are defining bad actors) is inherently dependent on the morals of the consumer.

Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap

The question would then become: "Whose morals are truly virtuous?".

What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term "capitalism"? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.

It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement

Would you mind defining "impossible to perfectly implement"? I don't want to draw conclusions based on interperetations of that statement.

I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.

Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term "maximization" is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.

No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.

When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one's expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One's ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,

And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin.

In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling "junk" medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it's efficacy.

Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?

Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn't care about it's own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One's ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn't mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.

But I have a right to say what I want to say without you hitting the disagree button.

Why? The right to the freedom of speech is not a right to not be offended.

I’m sorry my idea of freedom isn’t the same as yours maybe we should go to war over it?

I am an advocate of the use of one's voice over the use of violence.

That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices

This is actually a very good point. I'm not sure that I have a solution for it at the moment. The lazy argument would be that information eventually leaks out, but that is not, in the slightest, a guarantee. I will have to think on that.

and has the resources to vote with their wallet

This outlines the need for a competitive free market. If a business is making an undesirable decision, then the consumer would have other options to choose from, or a competitor without those practices would enter the market to scoop up those who are disillusioned.

They are also incentivised to eliminate competition

The wilful direct elimination of competition is anti-competitive behavior, and is, therefore, incompatible with a competitive free market, and should thus be prohibited.