Notices by kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org), page 60

@Gargron

yes, the self ones make sense. that was largely just from wanting to be 100% sure, implicit self is very weird in ruby :)

@Gargron i will admit that its analysis on my patch was confusing, but did lead to a better refactoring.

@mooncake

SR incident is better seen as a community resisting corporate attempts to poison the local environment. I believe the same resistance would have been done by any community in that situation. Most people don’t want their water supply put at risk (see also: Flint).

While there is still some resistance to integration by some tribes, it’s mostly the ones who lack resources who resist.

@shadowfirebird @Elizafox

well i was writing irc programs before eliza even used irc at all :)

@rook

indeed.

literally when you look at ISPs (well, other than Verizon, but everyone knows they are bastards), they have basically been generally very confused about what the debate is about, and keep pointing out that maybe Netflix should pay for better transit/peering.

so really the finger-pointing for this 'debate' should be pointed at Netflix imo.

they started it, in an attempt to get something beneficial to themselves, much like how Uber asks you to harass your government when they propose doing something Uber doesn't like.

if there's any lesson of this web 2.0 fad, it's that you don't have to bribe politicians when you can dupe people into harassing them for you.

@rook

beyond that, the TV packages offered in bundles are usually revenue-neutral at best.

in most cases, the ISP is losing money on the cable package in order to make it back on the internet, phone and recently home security packages they sell.

basically the cable TV package is just something they offer to get you in the door for their other stuff these days.

@rook

basically Netflix spun the fact that ISPs weren't willing to peer directly with them as "being in the slow lane."

they were very dishonest with this approach, basically buying transit from Cogent in order to make the case.

in other words, they willingly and knowingly degraded their service in order to call people to action in their efforts to bully ISPs into free peering.

a settlement-free peering agreement where one side is sending 99.9999999% of the traffic makes no sense.

netflix should have to pay just like akamai does to get direct access to those eyeballs.

#NetNeutrality goes both ways.

Yes, absolutely, no blocking, throttling or paid prioritization.

But also it means that video services such as Netflix shouldn't get a free pass, which is largely what the Obama "net neutrality" regulations were actually about -- forcing settlement-free peering with Netflix.

Netflix should have to pay for their network access too. We pay to send requests to Netflix, they pay to send video back to us. It's how Internet billing works.

@rowan that's also why we need to not subsidize netflix's transit costs with our own internet bills

And here I am in the jack in the box drive thru watching two idiots smoke cigarettes right next to the natural gas line.

@shadowfirebird @Elizafox

On networks that are run by civilized people, there are these things called IRC services, e.g. NickServ they do prevent such things when properly configured.

a variant could also be trivially made that causes the visibility attribute to mutate after exactly one boost

i ask because in mastodon hardened it would only be a few lines of code

how interested would people be in a followers-only visibility setting that allows boosting to their followers (and so on)?

it could be useful for allowing boosts inside a community of likeminded people.

@csaurus yep i already fixed it, mastodon has a security defect wherein reblogs don’t retain the visibility of their parent

next up: memory profiling

@bea what

okay i think we have that one sorted

@bea

https://github.com/kaniini/mastodon-hardened/commit/c970de0584dcd8f2a873bb0b930918c827465c60