Considering the context in which I'm encountering the term "UAP", and the Wiki page I get to if I look up "unidentified aerial phenomena", I worry their mission to get away from the automatic link to extraterrestrials may not be very successful!
I think I understand why this is done now. Most HTTP requests are hidden by the SSL encryption, and the keys to decrypt it are client-specific. So, if one wants to block ads at the network level without needing to get the SSL keys of every client that connects to the network, then this is the most specific amount of information that you can provide the PiHole with. The HTTP blocking needs to be set up in a client-specific manner, and that's why they work well as browser extensions.
Adblocking plugins aren’t limited by this and can filter the actual content and HTTP requests made by the browser.
Why is this the case? What rules do Adblock plugins use that allow them to determine that something that is being served is an ad? I understand from what you are saying that Adblock will block on the basis of the HTTP requests instead of filtering at the DNS level - do ads come with specific HTTP headers that are not processed by the pi-hole DNS server and thus can't be used for filtering? I don't fully understand yet the details of how the two ad-blocking mechanisms operate, so their differences are not obvious to me.
I have one and I love it! The first two years I managed with a conical burr hand grinder, but eventually I decided to switch to an electric grinder and it is much less work.
The silicon O-rigs I've had to change after about 3 years because the cylinder became a bit loose and water would leak while de-pressurizing.
I would think that they need to set a somewhat permissive threshold to avoid too many false positives due to people sharing a network. For example, a professor may share a reddit post in a class with 600 students with their laptops connected to the same WiFi. Or several people sharing an airport's WiFi could be looking at /r/all and upvoting the top posts.
I think 8 accounts liking the same post every few days wouldn't be enough to trigger an alarm. But maybe it is, I haven't tried this.
This is what I think, but if anyone understands it differently please correct me.
Vertical scalability refers to scaling within a single instance. More users join and they post more content, increasing the amount of disk space needed to hold that memory, network bandwidth to handle many users downloading comments and images at once, and processing power.
Horizontal scaling refers to the lemmyverse growing because of the addition of new instances. The problem in this form of scaling is due to the resources that an instance has to use due to its interactions with other instances. So, you may create a small instance without a lot of users, but the instance might still need a lot of resources if it attempts to retrieve a lot of information (posts, comments, user information, etc) from the other larger instances. For example, at some point a community in lemmy.ml might be so popular that subscribing to that community from a small instance would be too much of a burden on the smaller instance because of the amount of memory required to save the constant stream of new posts. The horizontal scaling is a problem when the lemmyverse becomes so large that a machine with only a small amount of resources is no longer able to be part of the lemmyverse because its memory gets filled up in a few hours or days.
I think this underestimates how users will naturally gravitate towards more centralized instances, or they’ll give up because the bigger instances are closed.
(This is purely my personal opinion, of course!) In the scenario in which a few large instances dominate, the idea of the fediverse failed. One may estimate the likelyhood of success or failure given how they expect humans to behave, but in the end experiment beats theory. I think that for the fediverse to work a significant cultural shift has to occur, but I don't think that it is an impossible shift. I would like the fediverse to succeed, and so I choose to take part in the experiment.
This also ignores that the system isn’t horizontally scalable at all, so scaling up gets even more expensive
Yes, that might cause some serious issues. The project is still in an early-development phase, and I don't understand the technical aspects well enough yet to be able to identify whether there is obviously a fundamentally invincible barrier when it comes to scalability. My optimistic hope is that the developers are able to optimize horizontal scalability fast enough to meet the demand for scale. If it turns out to be impossible to scale, then only rich enough parties would be able to have viable instances, and that could be a reason for failure.
A small cloud server + a domain name costs less than a Netflix subscription. The developers have taken care to package lemmy in ways that are relatively straight forward to deploy, so a dedicated person with a small amount of experience can have an instance up and running in an evening. As long as a few percentage of users are willing to pay a netflix subscription to keep a server running, the financial burden would be spread.
Car crashes are one of the main sources of traumatic brain injuries. I think that it is likely that someone who is wearing a helmet during a car crash would be protected to a degree from TBIs, so I looked a bit for a source on this and found this relevant blog post:
Fortunately here in the Netherlands we don't have to bike with a helmet on. Would I be supposed to leave it hanging from my bike, exposed to the rain and theft? Or carry it with me into the shops and bars and keep an eye on it? Sounds like a nuisance.
I'm in! Let's build them!