• 2 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle









  • It should still work!

    I only go back and make changes to LED if something breaks with a major Lemmy update, but Lemmy hasn’t had a major update since January. Lemmy v0.19.4 isn’t released yet, but when it is, I’ll make sure the deployment is up to date.

    Note that it does not have any advanced features that a major instance might want, such as storing images on S3, exporting data, or image moderation. If you intend for your instance to grow for 100+ users, this isn’t for you. This is only intended for beginners who are overwhelmed by the other Lemmy hosting options, and want an easy way to host a small single-user or small-user instance.




  • I still don’t like how flippant they’ve been in every public communication. I read the ToS. It’s short for a ToS, everyone should read it. They claim it was taken “out of context,” but there wasn’t much context to take it out of. The ToS didn’t make this distinction they’re claiming, there was no separation of Vultr forum data from cloud service data. It was just a bad, poorly written ToS, plain and simple.

    They haven’t taken an ounce of responsibility for that, and have instead placed the blame on “a Reddit post” (when this was being discussed in way more detail on other tech forums, Vultr even chimed in on LowEndTalk).

    As for this:

    Section 12.1(a) of our ToS, which was added in 2021, ends with “for purposes of providing the Services to you.” This is intended to make it clear that any rights referenced are solely for the purposes of providing the Services to you.

    This means nothing. A simple “we are enhancing your user experience by mining your data and giving you a better quality service” would have covered them on this.

    We only got an explanation behind the ToS ransom dialog after their CMO whined in a CRN article. That information should have been right in the dialog on the website.

    In both places, they’ve actively done vague things to cause confusion, and are offended when people interpret it incorrectly.



  • I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about this:

    I agree with the sentiment here, but all the technologies mentioned allowed us to ship a working application in a timely manner. I think that should always be the first goal. Now that this is out of the way, we can start looking at improving efficiency, security, resilience etc.

    “Security Second” is not good messaging for a project like this.

    But I’m glad my comment was hilarious to you.


  • I don’t need or want replication of my private projects to a peer to peer network. That’s just extra bandwidth to and from my server, and bandwidth can be expensive. I already replicate my code to two different places I control, and that’s enough for me.

    I’m not sure who Radicle is for, but I don’t think the casual hobbyist looking to self host something like Forgejo would benefit at all from Radicle.

    Loading the source code for Radicle on Radicle also seems fairly slow. It seems this distributed nature comes at a speed tradeoff.

    With the whole Yuzu thing going on, I can see some benefit to Radicle for high profile projects that may be subject to a takedown. In that respect, it’s a bit like “Tor for Git.”

    I suspect that over time, pirate projects and other blatantly illegal activities will make use of Radicle for anti-takedown reasons. But to me, these two projects solve two different problems, for two different audiences, and are not really comparable.


    Edit: There is already enough controversy surrounding Radicle, that, if I were someone looking to host a takedown-resistant, anonymous code repository, I would probably be better served hosting an anonymous Forgejo instance on a set of anonymous Njalla domains and VPSes. The blockchain aspect was already a bit odd, and what I’m now seeing from Radicle does not exactly inspire confidence. I don’t think I’ll ever use this.



  • Makes sense. The article calls it “unwarranted gatekeeping,” but they wouldn’t say that if they knew how Android internals work.

    Looking at the video demo for Circle to Search, it’s very likely they built this on top of ActionsServices, an Android component that enables extra interactions on top of the Recents switcher. This is already what’s being used to do things like OCR in the Recents switcher.

    Other non-Google ROMs use ActionsServices too, but their implementations vary, and they can’t just “tack on” something as complicated as this onto any vender implementation of ActionServices and expect it to work. They might not even have a vendor rollout plan for this thing yet, for all we know it was rushed out the door.

    Google has had a tight partnership with Samsung since the Pixel 6 came out, which is why it doesn’t surprise me that Samsung will be getting this feature first. Google can essentially boss Samsung around for little system things like this.

    The “for a long time” comment was probably due to Android 15 already being mostly final at this point. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were core changes to Android to allow more pluggable customizations to the Recents switcher in Android 16. That might enable Google to offer this feature to other vendors more cleanly (assuming the feature survives that long, which is doubtful).