Mostly just used for moderation.
Main account is https://piefed.social/u/andrew_s

  • 60 Posts
  • 135 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 24th, 2023

help-circle
  • Hmmm. Speaking of Fediverse interoperability, platforms other than yours (Pandacap) typically arrange things so that https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ was the domain, and something like https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/users/lizard-socks was the user, but Pandacap wants to use https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ for both. Combined with the fact that it doesn’t seem to support /.well-known/nodeinfo means that no other platform knows what software it’s running.

    When your actor sends something out, it uses the id https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/, but when something tries to look that up, it returns a “Person” with a subtly different id of https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ (no trailing slash). So there’s the potential to create the following:

    1. https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ sends something out.
    2. Instance hasn’t heard of that, so looks it up, and creates a new user in its database, with the returned ID (https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/)
    3. https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ sends else something out. Instance looks in it’s DB, finds nothing, so looks it up and tries to create it again. The best case is that it meets a DB uniqueness constraint, because the ID it gets back from that lookup does actually exist (so it can use that, but it was a long way around to find it). The worst case - when there’s no DB uniqueness constraint -is that a ‘new’ user is created every time.
    4. Repeat step 3 for every new thing you send.

    If every new platform treats the Fediverse as a wheel that needs to be re-invented, then the whole project is doomed.






  • Not sure where to post this. Sometimes (in ways that are difficult to replicate), I get a JSON response for a reddthat post in my browser instead of an HTML one. It’s happened before on mobile (Chrome) and today also desktop (MS Edge), so I was able to make a screenshot:

    I’m assuming it’s related to 0.19.4, but maybe others have seen this behaviour before the upgrade. Apologies if you’re already aware - I had a quick look for other mentions but didn’t find any.





  • It was never a threat to remove your posts. The ‘threat’, to the extent there ever was one, was to not bother seeking clarification in the event of any ambiguity, and only then if they were reported. As for accusations, I didn’t realise it was plural now. I think I said that I interpreted your vote as disapproval of my approach, which still doesn’t seem like an unreasonable interpretation.

    I’ve never moderated anything before, certainly not on Reddit. You were saying that I reminded you of someone who complained to Crayola. Now I apparently remind you of someone on Reddit. There’s nothing I can do about tenuous connections your brain is making, and this can never be a proper disagreement if you’re repeatedly wondering off into fantasy.


  • I was never offended, which I thought you were clear on before, but apparently not. It would seem like this urge you had to teach others, that you couldn’t resist, was so powerful that you willing to overlook any possibility that it wasn’t required.

    As for the offer of changing moderation style: yes, I’m willing to change. I’m still feeling my way around it. If enough people communicate, through votes or comments, that my approach is wrong, I’ll re-assess. Obviously though, someone as perceptive as you will have realised that my earlier offer was just for your stuff.



  • Cheers. I was familiar with the term from astronomy, but unsure why the author thought that term sounded ‘bad’. I was trying to engage in active moderation, seeking clarity rather than just nuking anything because it was reported. I’m assuming from your vote that you’d rather I don’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt, so I can do that if you prefer.