rglullis

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 6 months ago

Yeap, all of the alternatives assume would be set under the same domain, or at most just broken down by sport.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

If there is interest in this content, users will create a Lemmy community and post content there.

This is clearly not true. Content is missing and not everyone takes the initiative to post to help bootstrap communities. We don't have content here because we don't users, and we don´t have users because we don't have content.

Maybe they will even link to the sportsbots mirror.

Which would be fine, except that sportbots mirror does not have a page of its own. It is built in a way to just push the updates to its followers.

I had proposed to Lemmy devs a system to let people post ActivityPub content directly, but this was considered more trouble than it was worth (to them).

But don’t just set up a script to do it for you, that’s just something people are going to block.

Not everyone

[–] rglullis@communick.news 0 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Would it be one bot per mirrored account?

Yes. There is no information on sportbots about how many accounts they have listed, but I'm guess it's in the "high hundreds - low thousands" range.

There would probably need to be some fine-tuning about the number of posts. Some reporters post a lot, that could potentially flood those communities.

With options (2) and (3), I could come up with strategies to solve this. We could, e.g, repost only what has reached a certain number of likes on Twitter, or limit one bot to post only once per hour/day. Etc.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 6 months ago

Even with Tor you also have to trust the exit nodes. So, yes, I agree you will still need to trust someone, but we can control/design to have less things depending on this trust.

Specifically with ActivityPub, everything is designed around the idea that the server owns it all. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The problem is the inverse. There are times where you don't want to be connected to any message.

Nostr is being developed by stupid bitcoiners, and it suffers from the same stupid mistakes as BTC. Pseudonymous transactions is not enough for a payment network. Just like pseudonymous messaging is not enough for secure communication.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You don't need to go full p2p. You can still have servers and you can still have operators who work to prevent issues at the edges, but the servers need to be only blind communication relays and routers.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

No. Nostr is even worse because it ties your identity to your encryption keys.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 8 points 6 months ago

And pretty much dead, I was following this project but they stopped development in 2020.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just bullies who unfortunately think they own the place.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

KenobiDB is designed for small-scale applications and prototypes. While it provides excellent performance for most operations, it is not intended to replace full-fledged databases for high-scale or enterprise-level applications for that you should use MongoDB.

Only MongoDB is webscale...

 

Let me explain my current setup so that I can explain the problem...

For redundancy, I have two internet providers at home. One of them is DSL and the router is located at the entrance hall. The other one is cable and the connection point (and therefore the modem/router) is at the living room. My workstation is in another room on the opposite end of the apartment.

To connect all that, I bought a set of powerline adapters from TP-Link, one with 3 ports and WI-FI extender and two with 3-ports alongside with a load balancer multi-wan router, with 5 ports also from TP-Link.

Right now, I have one the multi-wan router connected to one powerline adapter (one port for each wan), another adapter at the entrance hall connected to the LAN of the DSL router, and the adapter with Wi-FI extender connected to the Cable router.

The wired part works. My workstation connects to the router and I get an IP from it. The router can connect with both WANs and my connection seems stable. My problem is in the wireless part. From my phone, it says it is connected but it can not resolve any external connection.

At first I thought the wi-fi was getting confused with the different DHCP servers, but even after disabling DHCP on DSL/Cable routers (not using it anyway because I am connecting through the "multi-wan" router, right?) the connection is still not going through. I can access the management part of the Wi-FI extender and it seems to be on the same subnet as the multi-wan router, so I guess it can connect to it, but the actual connection outside simply doesn't happen.

Is this setup so out of ordinary? Should I just forget about the wi-fi extender and add a "real" access point in the living room? I guess I could accept that the mobile devices need to be aware of the separate WAN routers, but it would be a lot nicer if they could all connect transparently...

 

I'm trying to get out of my Python/Javascript comfort zone and start contributing to other Fediverse projects that are built in other languages. If you are already using Emacs for your dev work in any of the above languages, can you share perhaps your configuration or at least recommended packages for beginners, which prioritize sensible defaults and can be used with minimal amount of fussing?

view more: ‹ prev next ›