This is bullshit. The total amount of advertising I want is zero. The total amount I want of tracking is zero. The total amount of experiments I want run on my data without consent is, guess, zero.
There's an entire political party built around it and you think people can't talk about it openly?
Definitely, AP is not magic. But if even within one protocol round-tripping and full-fidelity is impossible or very difficult, that makes it only harder and less likely through a bridge.
IMO bridging or translation isn't federation per se. Also it seems unlikely that protocols would converge to that extent. In fact AP implementations are already different enough that even within the same protocol it's hard to represent all the different activities instances can present.
I wouldn't really count Mastodon/Bluesky bridging as federation. They're incompatible protocols that were never intended to work together (arguably Bluesky was explicitly designed to avoid using AP).
Very informative. On paragraphs 61 and following, it clearly explains why the Israeli claims on human shields are improper and how attacks are not maintaining the principles of proportionality, distinction, and so on.
Ah, that does seem like it will solve the problem. Thanks!
Not sure I understand. What I'm trying to do is something like this:
- Poll a stream which takes fedi events. Read player commands.
- If an event comes from a known player, check which match they are into.
- With that info, get their opponents/coplayers etc and perform the change of state in the game (send replies, next turn, etc).
So what I have as a key is a player name (AP username) and from that I need to find which match they're in.
There's nothing semantically useful about a match ID.
Thanks, the RC is a possible approach. It seems to violate DRY a bit but maybe there's no way around it.
The reason I had the players outside the match is that I need them there anyway, because when I get a player action I need to check in which match they are, who are their opponent(s) and so on. So even if they're in, they'll have to be out too as there are concurrent matches and the player actions come all through the same network stream.
Very well-reasoned article, though the political constraints might end up making implementing its recommendations impossible. Hard to see how the US and EU could make the rhetorical shifts it would take. If events continue as they are now, the military realities may preclude it. While it seems advantageous to reach a negotiated settlement for all sides at the moment, this will not remain the case forever.
I can think of alternatives. For example, the server could keep the user's private key, encrypted with a passphrase that the user must have. So key loss wouldn't be an issue. (Yes, passphrase loss might, but there are lots of ways to keep those safely already, compared to key material which is difficult to handle.)
It depends, but mostly no. And if that means some sites are not economically possible, so be it.