2018
Feb
14
comment Changes to bounty rules: removal of double rep-retention, blocking of owner deletion
folks offering bounties on their own questions, awarding them immediately upon getting an answer, and then immediately deleting their question. Why would they do this? Were the bounty points refunded?
2017
Apr
16
awarded  Good Question
Feb
28
accepted How many undeletes does one have?
Feb
28
comment Please do not “lie” that the Community user “modified” the question
@Shog9 You should probably changed this to status-completed :)
2016
Feb
3
comment A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
@Nemo Just the point is that people are screaming that 1. MIT is too open ("I can't place my proprietary code on CR") 2. MIT is too closed ("I wan't a CC0 license"). The truth is that it's none of the above. The code is relieved under a bad form of GPL
Feb
3
comment A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
@Nemo didn't realize that CC-BY-SA is now GPL compatible. OK. Then fine, change the license on code to GPL V2, V3, V2+ and then vote if people want to change the license to CC0. I just don't see a need to keep code under a CC license when it's explicitly not recommended for code
Jan
15
comment A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
@DanielImms Except it's not public domain. People here are so confused. ALL THE CODE IN STACKEXCHANGE WAS ALWAYS UNDER CC-BY-SA That means that unless it's fair use (which no license will affect) , YOU HAVE TO ATTRIBUTE ALL YOUR CODE AND CANNOT, I REPEAT, CANNOT USE CODE ON SE IN A CLOSED SOURCE PROJECT. This debate is so frustrating. I understand you want to your code licensed under the GPL or something, fine, but the complaint that SE is forcing you to do something is just absurd
Jan
15
comment A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
@Vortico except it's not in the public domain now. It's under CC-BY-SA which is a strong-copyleft GPL incompatible license.
Jan
15
comment A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
For all those complaining about code being given away, it is given away now too. You put proprietary code on Code Review, and I'll take it and implement it in my open source project under the CC-BY-SA.
2015
Dec
22
accepted When starring a message from the star board, it's not reflected in the main chat window
Sep
16
awarded  Yearling
Jul
30
awarded  Good Question
Feb
16
comment Can Stack Exchange unroll the Share Button link?
@AstroCB In that case the question makes no sense.
Feb
16
comment Can Stack Exchange unroll the Share Button link?
@AstroCB You get publicist even if the links are all local (so if I publicize this post on another SE question and 1000 people come to see it [unlikely :)] I'll get Publicist?
Feb
16
comment Can Stack Exchange unroll the Share Button link?
I didn't see that question
Feb
16
comment Can Stack Exchange unroll the Share Button link?
@ShadowWizard Could be that way, or at least into meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77394/…
Feb
15
comment Can Stack Exchange unroll the Share Button link?
@FamousBlueRaincoat Even if you use the code, it won't help since you don't get credit when linking on a SE site.
Feb
15
comment Can Stack Exchange unroll the Share Button link?
I don't need it when I comment. I need it when people put a whole list of links in comments and then I have to open it in order to see what they're talking about
Feb
15
comment Can Stack Exchange unroll the Share Button link?
@ShadowWizard Sorry, busy until now. As for title change, we change titles in the post, why can't we change it in comments?
Feb
15
asked Can Stack Exchange unroll the Share Button link?