Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

urbanists.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 493 posts

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#121

Post by newswasboring »

pfraze wrote: post #54

Okay well. I work on Bluesky and helped build the AT Protocol. I'm sorry Sam differs with us on this, and I'm glad that Activity Pub is already there for him. However, Sam doesn't understand the ATProto very well and I want to clear it up a bit. Before I do, let me just say: Bluesky and the AT Proto are in beta. The stuff that seems incomplete or poorly documented is incomplete and poorly documented. Everything has m…

My reaction whenever I see such headline is always "there must be an engineer out there who worked on this, I wonder how they feel about this". I had the same reaction today, opened comments and you were at the top. I love HN sometimes.

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#122

Post by chaorace »

numlock86 wrote: post #95
anticristi wrote: post #83

Anyone else read "AT protocol" and thought of old modems?

Yes, me. But old modems? Two months ago I was integrating a 5G modem into a bare metal embedded application. AT is also used for the WiFi and Bluetooth chips/modems we use. AT commands on two- or four-wire RS232. Not everything is Linux and PCI/USB.

Same boat. A few years back I spent a summer living off LTE internet (before it was cool!) using a Sierra Wireless USB modem bodged into barely working with the help of pirated reference docs. Man am I glad that I gave up on that idea -- the OG AT protocol is, indeed, a totally obtuse crock of shit to the point where, honestly, it barely even qualifies for the moniker of "protocol" at all.

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#123

Post by JenrHywy »

lapcat wrote: post #46

> "Additionally, if a Bluesky server goes down, their way of keeping access to your data is by storing all of it on your device!" This seems troubling, if it's accurate. [I've edited the above quote to remove some all-caps and exclamation points.]

Having access to your data on your own devices is... bad now?

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#125

Post by jonathankoren »

zimpenfish wrote: post #114
jazzyjackson wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have 55k tweets, that would be a nightmare to host locally) theyre tweets, how much could they cost? @ 280 bytes each, that's like 15MB. double it for cryptographic signatures and reply-to metadata. is that really too much to ask for the capacity to transfer to another host at anytime? (also, leaving aside the fact that 55k tweets puts you in the 0.1% of most prodigious users)

As of my last Twitter export, I had 54425 tweets and the tweet data comes to 110M. But there's also 2G of media files that goes with it.

So… not only fits on ever popular cloud storage providers free tier, but also your phone.

Seriously. This is setting off all sorts of red flags. I’m old enough not to trust non w3c standards.

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#129

Post by sundvor »

tazjin wrote: post #102
renahlee wrote: post #59

There was no reason for that toot to be that aggressive :(

The tone of that whole thread in combination with posts like > Imagine if I had to store the 50k+ tweets I've made on Twitter on my device, and upload ALL of them to a new server whenever a community server went down. doesn't make this person seem particularly competent. I'm getting a vague feeling that this is normal discourse on Mastodon though, and that not using social media much shifts your personal overton wind…

Everything is upper case and absolutes these days, so many appear to have lost the capacity for nuance; it's turned into a shouting match for our attention.
Post reply on HN