Based on your analogue they drive the car for 7.5 inches (614.4 Kb by 63360 inches by 20 divided by 103179878.4 Kb) and promise based on that that car travels 20mph which might be true, yes, but the scale disproportion is too considerable to not require tests. This is not maths, this is a real physical device - how would it would behave on larger real data remains to be seen.

106 Gbps

They get to this result on 0.6 MB of data (paper, page 5)

They even say:

Moreover, there is no need to evaluate our design with datasets larger than the ones we have used; we achieve steady state performance with our datasets

This requires an explanation. I do see the need - if you promise 100Gbps you need to process at least a few Tbs.

Excel enabled non-programmers to create basically any app as long as they are fine with a cell-based UI. Same with Access and CRUD apps. I know people love to dunk on M$ here, and for good reasons too, but these two programs are probably responsible for a decent chunk or PoC/v1 projects worldwide.

A few years ago people were talking about convergence of phone/desktop, i.e. you plug your phone into a big screen and keyboard and it’s now your desktop computer.

Mobile apps are shit for that. Sure, my phone is powerful enough to browse internet, play video and music but on desktop with mouse/kb it’s just weird and funky. And I’m not even talking about any productivity software which is straight impossible.

Not for the seedbox, but for the personal always on VPN I would def prefer something nearshore.

Why? I refuse to believe there’s no location in SA with a decent internet and without DMCA enforcement.

Be ware of using VPN if you want spanish content and wanna join a private tracker; all spanish private tracker ban the use of VPNs

What’s the rationale for that?

Uggh, yes, that.

Nowadays it’s change settings, refresh page, navigate 10 intermediate pages because SPA, confirm that your settings stuck.

That is conveniently left out of the speck. Attestation server may require signed binary on a client system, it may require whatever it wants really, because why not? It’s a website who decides to trust attestation server or not.

They aren’t proposing a way for browsers to DRM page contents and prevent modifications from extensions.

And yet, this proposal would make it easier to do so.

Basically, it would allow websites to only serve users who comply with website requirements (i.e., no extensions, no ad blockers, only Chrome-based, whatever) whatever these requirements are.

You (your browser) go to a website, example.com, which requires attestation. So you must go to an attestation server and attest your device/browser combo (by telling the attestation server whatever information it requires). If the attestation server thinks you are trustworthy, it gives you an integrity token that you pass to example.com, and then you can see example.com. The website knows which attestation server issued your integrity token, so you can’t create your own.

So no extra software means no attestation server would attest you; means you can’t see example.com. End of story. It’s the same as the current “your browser is not supported” window, only you can’t get around it by changing the user agent.

As usual with these initiatives, bullshit is spread across different specs - this spec by itself implies that any number of attestation servers can exist, and they can check whatever they want, and no browser should be excluded, etc., etc., but practical implementation would probably check installed extensions, etc.

Before buying, check that you actually like homemade pasta. I bought Marcato Atlas knock-off and turns out I don’t like the pasta from homemade dough (1 large egg per 100 g flour), preferring Barilla, etc.

Email is not only 1:(small N). Maillists do exist and and are used to facilitate discussions between a large amount of people via email. They are also often public so anonymous readers and search indexers can use them.

/all is certainly an interesting thing - default Active sorting calculates a rank based on the score and time of the latest comment, with decay over time. If Threads are connected they would dominate /all. But there can certainly be adjustments, we can create a new sorting style, and make it default. For example:

• Posts are deprioritized based on MAU or some similar metric. The larger the MAU, the lower the post is ranked assuming the same engagement. If the post got 100 upvotes on an instance with 1000 users, it’s probably a much more interesting post, than the post that got 100 upvotes on an instance with 100 000 000 users.
• Posts are (de)prioritized based on instance source. For example setting Threads to -1000 would effectively remove it, setting Threads to -50 would allow you to see only super active posts. On the other hand if we want to see more content from less populated instance we might set it (i.e. german lemmy feddit.de) to the score of 100.
• Instances can provide a limited number or percentage of /all - i.e. after we got 10 posts from Threads, stop getting posts from this instance.

I don’t know. I would like to subscribe to someone on Threads from Mastodon (since both are Twitter alternatives), if they don’t have Mastodon account (which let’s be honest they probably don’t). Zuck does not get any of my data (besides what’s available publicly anyway). If Threads decides to go full EEE, I’ll stop getting updates from people on Threads, same as I don’t get updates from people on IG right now. I think proliferation of ActivityPub protocol would be the greatest advantage.

Moreover, I think we should follow the email architecture - I might use i.e. Proton Mail, but it does not prevent me from sending emails to Gmail, which I think is a bad provider, who collects a lot of user data. In fact if Proton Mail forbade sending email to Gmail I would be really displeased about that.

The goal is to allow people to choose where they want to go and ActivityPub is what can help with that, unlike blocking Threads.