Lemzlez

How? The sublinks devs started the project just because they didn’t want to work on Lemmy for whatever reason. If they did, they would have worked on Lemmy. It’s either Lemmy AND Sublinks, or Just Lemmy with the same developers.

Having multiple implementations is a good thing, regardless of what language they use. They all implement the same protocol, should be (mostly) compatible, and can learn from (and compete with) each other.

Look at other OSS. There’s so many Linux distributions, Why doesn’t everyone just work on a single one?

Because everyone has a slightly different view on things. This makes the OSS community stronger.

I have seen people wanting to do Java, and while I personally prefer rust, I do see why.

Outside of the entire Sublinks discussion, it’s important to note that Java is not just Java anymore either. Kotlin offers many of the same advantages syntax-wise that Rust does (including the lack of null), and has access to Java’s excellent ecosystem.

Ultimately, it is up to people to decide what they want to use. Regarding of your opinions on Java or Rust, it is a valid choice either way for this type of software. It’s a personal choice.

I’ve never really seen this in (Java/Rust/PHP) backend personally, only in client-side JS (the CORS preflight).

It’s a security feature for browsers doing calls (checking the CORS headers before actually calling the endpoint), but for backends the only place it makes sense is if you’re implementing something like webhooks, to validate the (user submitted) endpoint.

Even if that were true - does it matter?

Java is a perfectly valid choice for something like this.

Yes, Rust is “faster”, uses less memory, etc…

Java is fast enough, though. It offers a fantastic ecosystem and, seeing as these projects are ran by volunteers who do this in their free time, there’s a lot more people willing to chip in some work.

They don’t because it’s not true.

There’s a few things moving to quarkus, but a lot of that is being pushed by Redhat (whose own software was not even spring boot but JEE)

Hey, it’s me, your friendly neighbourhood corporate shill, telling you to not buy any more nonstick cookware because I love Tefal so much. More for me!

But seriously, I’m not disputing that the chemicals you listed are bad, just that the coating itself doesn’t affect you.

PFAS bad, but only there during production. PTFE fine, and that’s what’s on your pan. PTFE does not get into your blood. Any PTFE you consume comes back out, because it is not PFAS.

TL;DR: use pan until pan bad, then buy pan with no PTFE.

There’s no PTFE in that list.

Yes, the final product comes back out. The final product is PTFE, not PFAS. PTFE is harmless unless degraded or overheated (which is why you shouldn’t do that with non-stick cookware).

To produce PTFE, PFAS are used (or are intermediaries in the process), which is why the production is dangerous, but the product isn’t.

That stuff sticks to (aka reacts with) literally nothing. That's the point of it. The whole innovation of nonstick cookware was the fact they got it to stick to something. It’s not even dangerous if you ingest it, it doesn’t react with anything so it just comes back out.

What IS dangerous is the by products and intermediate products, as well as the stuff that comes off if you overheat it. (And also, like you said, when they get old)

This whole movement against non-stick is alright, but so many people do it for the wrong reasons. If you have nonstick, just use it and don’t buy nonstick next time. Throwing away perfectly fine cookware like that is like boycotting charmin by flushing down all your remaining rolls in one go and going to the store to buy new toilet paper from another brand.

I can see the case for some of them after you’ve been in a crash (although if the pyro fuse has blown, not much requiring switches will work anymore, regardless of the type of controls), but if you want physical controls for the rear view mirror for safety, you should probably start adjusting that before you start driving.

Same for cabin lights, whatever you’re doing that needs the lights on should probably be done stationary, if you care about safety.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, only with the suggestion that my comment (or this post, for that matter) are a generalization towards all christians.

The post clearly only applies to those who would use the bible as a source in their arguments, not to those who are reasonable and see it for what it is.

My comment uses "christians" within that context - it is not a standalone piece of text. I am, (IMHO clearly) referring to the same christians the post is. I'm just going to assume it's a misunderstanding, because I find the suggestion of me generalising while the comment is within context to be quite disingenuous.

Please consider my reply in context of the post, it is not a standalone piece. It’s clear who “christians” refers to in this context.