What is there to relate to, though? That page is trying so hard to sell you on something, but never really explains what exactly. And it’s only goofy marketing speech, how would one relate to any of that? I’m probably missing something here.
I guess they were serious when they advertised “zero theory”. There’s zero coherence or actual information as far as I can find
Huh. This has to be the worst promo site I’ve ever read. Whatever you described here does not seem to be reflected on that notion page.
You are very clearly selling something, so obviously this is a bad post to begin with, but in an attempt to make fun of the substance itself, I found none that is coherent. Can’t even joke about this, it’s so goofy.
Edit: I mean come on, what is this even
Not all digital products are built to protect and perform.
ZOKO is built to do both with zero theory, zero fluff, and zero BS.
🧠 You get:
- Real income systems tested in global markets
- Scam-prevention + gov-supported survival strategies
- Multilingual-ready, instantly applicable info
- Verified insights from field execution (not guesswork)
No vague advice. No bloated nonsense.
Just pure tools to earn smarter and safer, anywhere.
“No vague advice”, aye…
Edit2: This is actually pretty funny
- Built for clarity, not gimmicks.
✅ You’re not buying ideas. You’re buying results.
Oh wow, hadn’t heard of graphite/graphene yet, and it looks so interesting! I rarely explicitly thank a comment that gave me a lot personally, but this time I think I have to. The graphene framework and the concept of artwork as compiled programs is pretty intriguing read! Thanks a bunch!
Right. Okay well this has been fun, have a good one.
So you dictate the objective truth in situations where there are but interpretations? Any other interpretations are wrong, with a bold font even, other than yours, which you solely deem correct?
Right. I mean this is exactly what I was just dropping in to signal. And it’s not about who or what is right or correct. It’s the use of leading words… that’s all. Jesus.
Yeah, that’s exactly what it is, as you say: Your interpretation. Can’t offer much more as a third party, and I’m not saying it’s wrong or anything, I was just bringing the fact that it is a subjective interpretation up, since it probably isn’t clear for everyone.
“Long rant about failed leadership” is probably not how everyone would describe it/them, either. And just the use of “rant” there, as opposed to something neutral like “a post” or “writing” or whatever, is an example of what I mean. It’s not wrong and doesn’t imply you are wrong, but it is suggestive. Which, again, is fine, I do not understand why not just let the quick note I dropped be, rather than try and fight it for no reason. If you feel it’s unwarranted, just drop a downvote and it’ll go down in the thread and hidden on some clients, too, if it gets enough of those.
Submitter becoming very angry is not an objective view of it, unless you know for a fact they did become not only angry or frustrated, but very angry. Which would still be very leading because of the use of “very” where not necessary. Lash out on someone/something is also a very leading choice of words, since it has connotations beyond the neutral.
I’m just saying a lot of subjectivity on the words chosen, and that others should be aware.
Edit: Also I don’t believe you exclusively stated facts, but that’s neither here or there, this was about leading and biased tone. Which, again, is entirely valid, but not everyone will pick up on those and take it as it is, colors included.
Isn’t it just to make the code more idiomatic rust side? If there’s breaking api change c side, it’s just a matter of adjusting the interface, it should not involve any grand work, right? The contributor bringing that change over can just ping anyone familiar with the rust interface and that should be the end of it for them, can’t imagine it’d be very involved to fix
Yeah that is a very opinionated description. Up until “the submitter became very angry, lashed out” that sounds about right, but from there on, your bias shows. Which is fine, and human, but probably worth mentioning this to others reading this. It’s not exactly an objective view, whatever that’s worth.
But isn’t this in specific just about bindings?
I’m out of touch here, what happened? No longer use it, but have some previously stored data there, should I do a purge? Is it dead or did they transition to something profit-driven and questionable?
As far as I’m aware, most of the “dangerous” lua api (io/network etc) is blocked and only available to mods during the startup phase, and not otherwise during runtime.
But I’m sure there are workarounds. For one, I’ve written mods with rust for it, and you can require and then call any dynamic library through lua, with all of the io and networking you’d want, as long as it is brought in during the init phase. And the mods that do access the “dangerous” api, have to be explicitly given rights to do so (but again, by the server, not the clients) in the config before it works.
It’s not that bad for the most cases, as long as you trust the server. If playing single player, you personally control which mods get the secure environment access, so at that point it’s entirely your own fault, if you get exploited.
I do wish to understand the core message, and I’m sorry that I came here for a laugh in a very unfriendly way. But you have to admit it’s extremely hard to infer the message, maybe you can clarify it a bit here