WhyJiffie @ WhyJiffie @sh.itjust.works

Posts

3

Comments

1,274

Joined

2 yr. ago

I was preparing my verbal pitchforks, but it seems they have chosen a middle ground. they will only require verification for adult content, and only in the EU and UK.

which means that if you don't need adult content or you can use a VPN, then it seems it won't affect you. so they are probably doing the bare minimum required by law

And in terms of torrenting specifically, torrents have to explicitly support I2P. You can't just take any clearnet torrent and expect it to work on I2P.

are you sure about that? for public torrents you just add the postman tracker and done. if libtorrent gets support for DHT over I2P, even that won't be needed

why not codeberg? kind of lightweight on JS, but especially compared to gitlab.

@Nundrum@yall.theatl.social

and that's good for who? who are "they" to begin with?

that would probably work. I think the IP does not need to be static, but there can be problems if your IP changes often, and it's not updated quickly in DNS.

the only hard requirement for a local headscale (for usage over the internet) is that you are not behind a CG-NAT, and you can forward a port to your server in your router

but for the love of god and your own benefit, put a name constraint directly on the root cert

you don't strictly need a VPS, what you need is a (mostly?) static IP address, that is especially not behind CG-NAT. if your ISP won't give that to you, you get a VPS, because one of the most important jobs of headscale is NAT hole punching and patching your devices in

the first paragraph is not like in the post. did they rephrase it because of the "as it does" part?

this is the current version:

Tailscale recently announced our Series C fundraise. We were grateful for all the community support, but the Internet also raised a few of its collective eyebrows, wondering whether this meant the dreaded “enshittification” was coming next.

the internet archive does not show your version either: https://web.archive.org/web/20250702140430/https://tailscale.com/blog/evitability-of-enshittification

where did you get that quote from?

I don't see it, which is horrific considering that others do. can you show a few examples that you think is AI slop?

I have this to open the site in archive.today:

    
javascript:void(open('http://archive.today/?run=1&url='+encodeURIComponent(document.location)))

  

I would love it if reddit management is so selfish that they dont care even about AI, but only their revenue.

This theory is based on my understanding that computers don’t go all the way to sleep anymore and reenabling S3 restores normal sleeping.

yeah, now that you say that is probably most laptops in the last few years. but I don't think desktops do it. wrong, even my 4+ years old pc motherboard supports it according to /sys/power/mem_sleep

wasp nest on a tree??

no, please rather don't respond, especially not with an image, I don't want to see it!

I wanted to say this is not how it works:

My pet theory is that a lot of systems are constantly looking at what is active on the network and those pings are keeping the machine awake.

or if you meant that, computers are normally not pingable when they are asleep. net adapters only wake the computer when seeing a magic packet with their mac address in it, and it is the operating system that receives the ping request and decides to send back a ping response.

an exception is when it is set up to wake on some network traffic pattern, but few net adapters support that mode of operation

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Wake-on-LAN#Enable_WoL_on_the_network_adapter

as I heard that's pretty common at oracle, but it's good to spread the word

its not the system that handles wol, it doesn't need to ping anything. even the net adapter doesn't need to do that

it would not be a trusted service, but at most legally. just like centralized chat scanning systems.

It doesn't even have to store the verification result, if you don't want to

"if you don't want to" lol. you won't decide whether they will store anything, silly. the control is theirs, cemented, the law is on their side, the political narrative will be on their side (think of the children!!), they'll do whatever the fuck they want.

that does not seem to be right. 21 is way too high, and also this would effectively be a universal restraining order kids and not-so-kids, and adults. I don't want to go to jail just because of walking by a kid or a young adult, let alone converse with them, only sick people would actually endorse this.

but also pagers only do one way communication, don't they? that is worthless here. the goal is not to just put a GPS tracker to kids, but to give them a simple communication device.

a heavy handed approach, but I don't see one that is not heavy handed, private, and effective enough.

slight modification: mobile phone is ok if it only has a small screen like on old feature phones, no capabilities for mobile data but only calls (that's probably a software limitation), and no social media apps (or any installable apps).
perhaps wifi capability with a weak antenna, or a wifi interface that only supports low speeds.

private communications is a question though, because phone calls and SMS are anything but private.

hey people, this could work!

and its not like we need to ban kids from the internet, but to only allow them with the active supervision of a parent.

how would you ensure that this stays private? not just from facebook, but completely. as I see it, this would require some form of biometric authentication