Search
232 results for “hrefna”
-
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@Hrefna (DHC)If your server disappeared tomorrow with no ability to export your follower graph, how would you rebuild it?
If you do a server move, what happens to your post history?
Widespread adoption of Nomadic Identity, if it ever happens, may help with this.
I am sure you already know this, but for other readers, these two 2017 articles explain how Nomadic Identity works in Hubzilla, which is based on the Nomad/Zot protocol.
#^https://medium.com/@tamanning/nomadic-identity-brought-to-you-by-hubzilla-67eadce13c3b
#^https://medium.com/@tamanning/getting-started-with-nomadic-identity-how-to-create-a-personal-channel-on-hubzilla-7d9666a428b
Mike Macgirvin recently got Nomadic Identity working on ActivityPub too.
#^https://fediversity.site/item/b69ce5a0-0c22-4933-8393-dce7100f4584
Unfortunately, the ActivityPub world keeps pretending that Mike Macgirvin and his work does not exist (Nomadic Identity has been around and working in Hubzilla for roughly a decade).
There's also OpenWebAuth (Federated Single Sign On). As Sean Tilley explains in this March 2024 article, Nomadic Identity and OpenWebAuth together can enable network resilience, censorship resistance, and ease of migration.
#^https://wedistribute.org/2024/03/activitypub-nomadic-identity/
No idea whether Nomadic Identity, OpenWebAuth, conversation containers, etc. will ever get widespread adoption. At present, the user base of software such as Hubzilla, Forte etc. (which have these features) is negligible. And at least in case of Hubzilla (which I am using), the UI and UX needs a lot of work; don't know about Forte (which is based on ActivityPub).
And yes, all the other problems with the Fediverse that you listed will still remain. At this point, I doubt if the Fedi will ever become socially and politically relevant.
#ActivityPub #ATProto #Nomad #Zot #NomadicIdentity #OpenWebAuth #Fediverse -
@hrefna The aspect I find most surprising about it is that it didn't happen earlier. #boilingfrogs -
@hrefna The aspect I find most surprising about it is that it didn't happen earlier. #boilingfrogs -
@hrefna The aspect I find most surprising about it is that it didn't happen earlier. #boilingfrogs -
@hrefna The aspect I find most surprising about it is that it didn't happen earlier. #boilingfrogs -
@hrefna The aspect I find most surprising about it is that it didn't happen earlier. #boilingfrogs -
@hrefna As a passionate advocate for liberty and the freedom of information, I confidently assert that powerful people must limit the ability of people to use freely available information, if not reduce the amount of free information altogether, which will actually have the effect of *increasing* liberty and freedom of information. If you don't understand this, I can't help you.
#poeslaw -
@hrefna @coffeegeek The devil is in the defaults… I had the same problem with my generic WordPress site until I enabled Automattic’s WP Super Cache plug-in. Perhaps the best way WordPress could support the social web is for it to improve its caching defaults for bursty traffic in general.
-
Part of the reason you are seeing so much disappointment is because this is a company that largely, until this point, was walking a very different line, which you can see in their human rights policy https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/cms/human-rights-policy and previous environmental commitments.
HRC gave them a score of 95 https://www.hrc.org/resources/buyers-guide/tractor-supply-company-2
I don't think anyone thought they were even liberal, but it's a damn sight better than most companies in this space.
A short thread.
-
@hrefna That's the sort of approach we're taking at #DistributedPress
If you're going to be at rue fediforum tomorrow we're planning to have a session to get more into the details :)
Right now we've split the content/publishing/serving/inbox/reading into different components that can be mixed and matched
-
@hrefna @cwebber @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna @cwebber @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna @[email protected] @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna @cwebber @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna @cwebber @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna Are you familiar with the effort from a few of us at building out a robust #ActivtyPub Test Suite? If not, go see this group: @activitypubtestsuite
Love your thoughts on what would be helpful and if anyting you have already built functions as such a test suite, or could.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
