Maybe that happens if you design a car like an iPod with a bunch of engineers living in California and Texas.
agressivelyPassive
joined 1 year ago
You can't block people. Who would you know, who registered the domain?
What you're proposing is pretty similar to the current state of email. It's almost impossible to set up your own small mail server and have it communicate the "mailiverse" since everyone will just assume you're spam. And that lead to a situation where 99% of people are with one of the huge mail providers.
Especially since being immune to censorship is kind of the point of the fediverse.
If you're even a tiny bit smart about it, you can start hundreds of sock puppet instances and flood other instances with bullshit.
It's market manipulation for money laundering purposes, nothing more.
It's the high street version of putting an empty box for sale on eBay for 10000€.
Not only cloud infrastructure, tons of industrial automation devices are more or less open on the Internet. Best case that's just a few minutes downtime in a factory, worst case someone fries the grid and destroys water treatment plants.
And even the actual applications being written for the government aren't that great. The lowest bidder gets the contract, and security is really easy to cheap out on, if you're doing just enough to not be legally liable - which isn't hard.
The older I get and the more insights in the inner workings of the technical infrastructure I get, the more I'm surprised we're not actively collapsing right now. It's scary how abysmal security is and it's scary how unprepared society is. Just as a hint: the European power grid spans the entire EU, Balkans, Turkey, Ukraine. There's no plan how to restart the grid, if it shuts down entirely. None. Complete terra incognita.
Again, that's not my point.
But again anyway, it's also silly to assume they're not right in the head. You don't know their situation. And it's even sillier to assume that I implied helping them would be wrong. Helping them while endangering yourself and making the situation for the other guy even worse is just stupid.
That's not the question here. It's about intention, not your reaction.
Anyway, the equivalent here would be rather jumping after the guy to rescue him 2min after he jumped. You may endanger yourself and you might rescue a half-braindead shell of a person.
Don't kid yourself, besides talking him out of jumping, nobody would do anything.
I mean, if someone pours gasoline over his head and lights himself on fire, you can somewhat reasonably infer an intentionality.
The clear answer is: don't use subversion. There's really no reason not to use git, since you can use git just like subversion if you want to.
No. And thinking it is, is delusional.
500nits according to the store.
It's extremely complicated and I don't really see a solution.
You'd need gigantic resources and trust in those resources to vet accounts, comments, instances. Or very in depth verification processes, which in turn would limit privacy.
What I actually found interesting was bluesky's invite system. Each user got a limited number of invite links and if a certain amount of your invitees were banned, you'd be banned/flagged to. That creates a web of trust, but of course also makes anonymous accounts impossible.