12m to make a cup of tea, good grief.
This pull request should solve this (at least from the user perspective). Need to wait for the next 0.19 release or an admin can patch it in manually if they want.
The letter made four demands: that a full debate is held in parliament; that proper consultation take place with the Chagossians, who have so far been ignored; that alignment is reached with the US; and that a detailed and transparent breakdown of costs is provided.
Involving the Chagossians and wanting a cost breakdown honestly doesn't seem that unreasonable. They're obviously being opportunistic here, the Tories are the ones who've been negotiating this deal over the past few years and chose not to involve the Chagossians.
It is unthinkable to alienate our closest ally by finalising this deal without their support.
Glad to see ~~the Brexit party~~ Reform want to take full advantage of our regained sovereignty.
Yeah, I do think Doctorow has missed the mark here. @tante put it better than I could:
It’s trying to raise money (at least 4 Mio and up to 30 Mio USD) for ATProto (the protocol at the core of Bluesky) so “the community” can standardize the thing and “build stuff”. Plus the project wants to run a second “Relay” (which is the chokepoint that centralizes Bluesky at the moment). Edit/Addition: The fact that just running another Relay leads to costs in the millions should make people wonder if this is the right approach for a better social media infrastructure that does not rely on big organizations.
Okay, but isn’t that what the Bluesky Public Benefit Corporation (the corporation that owns Bluesky and employs the people working on the ATproto protocol) wanted to enable/do? They already got millions in funding (some from sketchy Blockchain companies). Now some diffuse external entity collects more from random people, from “the community”. And not a bit but a lot more. What do the people donating money get for their investment? Stake in the Bluesky corporation? [Checks notes] Nope. Nothing.
The 9 custodians consist of a whole bunch of AI people, some Mozilla folks (same thing) and the director of the Social Web foundation. […]
It’s just presented in a weird way with a whole lot of “give us a lot of money and we’ll make amazing stuff happen” and in the end a bunch of AI grifters get some startups “that build upon AT proto” funded.
Also if you mess the colour filters, you still only get porn but different porn??? And on some if you select one colour, select another and go back there'll be more results, still only porn???
My question is why doesn't the PeetTube logo show up at all? If you turn safe search on, or change any of the letters to capitals ("peertube logO") it's nothing but the logo.
You couldn't waterboard a confession out of me about getting surgery to improve my sexual performance and this guy goes straight to social media about it.
It's just porn for whatever reason.
PeerTube (don't duckduckgo "peertube logo" with safe search off)
Non-Roman Romania
Building an ActivityPub application (APlication?) that uses AT protocol's PDSs would be pretty interesting. Compatibility would be a nightmare, but I don't see a reason you couldn't have the sign up and data management work like it does on Bluesky (
did:plcissues aside) and the server side/relay work with APub.It's more like the idea of adversarial interoperability he's talked about in the past, focusing on making the transition to a new platform easier by forcing compatibility between nominally incompatible platforms. The article does imply he thinks that Bluesky will enshittify, so our focus as activists of the good internet should be on tools to make the inevitable migration easier. I just don't think "Free Our Feeds" is that.