Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.
Activity for Canina
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #292424 |
@#8046 In that case I think two Q&A-like categories would do, plus Meta and whatever else the community might decide on like maybe a collaborately edited wiki-like section; something like "magic allowed" and "no magic" (exact category titles to be determined later, if this turns out to be a good and ... (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292424 |
(Note: I'm a moderator on Scientific Speculation, but this is purely my own thoughts, not something yet run by the community.)
Considering that Scientific Speculation sees very little traffic, and that this proposal has already amassed some interest:
*Might it be worth rebranding/refocusing Sci... (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290925 |
@#61308 There is the old Law community proposal: https://meta.codidact.com/posts/282502 (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290925 |
@#57337 A good start would probably be to not post material which you feel the need to flag up front with "I do not know if it is true." It's good that you recognize that LLMs have no concept of "truth" (they emit linguistically plausible strings of syllables), but stating that you know about this do... (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290893 |
Also, this post feels like nothing more than a blatant copy-and-paste with absolutely no care taken whatsoever.
> We focus primarily on es- sentialism and constructivism
"es- sentialism"? (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290413 |
Not an answer, but:
It's not necessarily so that a certificate chain problem will be equally visible to everyone.
If a site is fronted by a content delivery network, they are likely to do TLS termination. The backend connection between them and the actual servers may then be HTTP or HTTPS, and ... (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290731 |
@#57337 You cannot change the license of a post after it has been created. License changes have been discussed and come with significant issues of their own.
You can, however, delete a post and re-post it with the same content under a different license, which will in effect dual-license it. IANAL,... (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290186 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Can an email's Reply-To have a different domain than its From? Any such negative effects would seem to be against at the very least the letter, and really also the spirit, of RFC 5322 section 3.6.2 on originator fields. In the words of RFC 5322: > The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |