441–450 of 493 posts
Here's the last generation of critique, when Diaspora developers discussed the good and bad in ActivityPub, and why they wouldn't support it:
- https://overengineer.dev/blog/2018/02/01/activitypub-one-pro...
- https://overengineer.dev/blog/2019/01/13/activitypub-final-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Rocambole" would be even easier to search for
Ok, If I make a protocol I will call it "rocambole" but I will be thinking of the sand leek rather than the victorian fictional adventurer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you use this to see the above thread?
After logging in to Brutaldon, click the Search button at the top, paste the URL of the thread into the field, and submit the form. The Mastodon post appears. Click the "thread" link to expand the entire thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might be true - but how else can it work? The data has to get onto the server somehow, and the days of unsigned or unencrypted data ended with Snowden. The OP was going on about storing all the data on-device and uploading it, but regardless of where it’s stored, if a bunch of people have to move, the thundering herd problem, so to speak, will still exist. Also, signature verification is not slow. I don’t know w…
BlueSky uses @noble/secp256k1 which performs this stuff in Javascript, with about 880* verifications per second on the Apple M2 (a chip with a relatively high IPC, likely higher than your average server). Verifying those messages will take about a minute of CPU time per user (assuming no impact from cache misses due to threads swapping in and out and processing new data). I think that's quite significant. * = https:/…
But is this the only possible implementation? I suppose for the OP to have a reasonable point (that it’s “a crock of shit”), this would need to be an intractable problem.
I don't know, sounds pretty interesting that every user has their own repository and can upload it to a new instance, however how will content moderation even work on a platform like this?
I'm no expert, but piecing together what I've read, content moderation will not really be a thing. Instead there will be content labeling services which can be provided by third parties. You would subscribe to a labeling feed then use those labels to filter content you didn't want to be visible.
- Dodges any free-speech issues
- Gives individuals more choice and control over what they see
- Allows labellers to not worry as much about false-positives because their impact is limited by the above, which means they can use more automation, etc.
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…
Reading this I hear someone passionate about technology for the sake of technology. Which is cool, I totally get the desire to build things oneself, but it doesn't really address the substantive questions people are asking about AT: An open protocol exists that broadly does what you want to do. That protocol is stable and widely used. That in itself, regardless of the quality of the protocol, already represents an OK…
A protocol like this doesn't work without community adoption. And the best way to get the community to adopt is to build on what's already there rather than trying to reinvent the fridge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no expert, but piecing together what I've read, content moderation will not really be a thing. Instead there will be content labeling services which can be provided by third parties. You would subscribe to a labeling feed then use those labels to filter content you didn't want to be visible.
Pretty much yeah. Like the web, filtering happens on the read side, not the write side. This: - Dodges any free-speech issues - Gives individuals more choice and control over what they see - Allows labellers to not worry as much about false-positives because their impact is limited by the above, which means they can use more automation, etc.
- Allows hate speech to hide in plain sight.
- Allows plausible deniability that you aren't the nazi bar.
- May allow moderation labeling to be used as a form of harassment, by intentionally using labels inaccurately.
- Does not actually absolve you of the write-side responsibility to filter illegal content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I wish they hadn't clobbered the name of an existing, well-known protocol. It's still used in drivers for cellular modems (I'm working with it right now), which are getting more and more numerous for IoT applications.
Speaking of which, does anybody know a good freestanding C library that doesn't use dynamic allocation for the Hayes AT protocol?
It's tough to do in a freestanding way given that it's a command-response protocol. It's very convenient to depend on the specific uart API that's available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most users probably have the pictures they uploaded to Twitter still stored on their phone without having a capacity issue due to them.
When did you join Twitter? I joined in 2008 and have gone through... 7 phones in that time. I definitely don't have all those photos or images.
The storage on your phone would probably still be enough for nearly everyone and for the rest doing the account moving process on a PC or through cloud storage would probably be ok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're explicitly not debating in good faith: "Also I don't care if I'm spreading FUD or if I'm wrong on some of this stuff. I spent an insane amount of time reading the docs and looking at implementation code, moreso than most other people. If I'm getting anything wrong, it's the fault of the Bluesky authors for not having an understandable protocol and for not bothering to document it correctly." ( https://urbanis…
I don't think it's "not in good faith" to say "I made a real substantial effort to understand this, and am trying to describe it accurately; if at this point my descriptions don't match the reality, it's not my fault but that of the people who made it impossible to understand". (Of course it's perfectly possible, for all I know, that SW is not debating in good faith. But what you quote doesn't look to me like an admi…