みんなで別の一つの場所に引っ越しするんじゃなくて、それぞれが #ActivityPub に対応した場所に行けばいいじゃない？
-
みんなで別の一つの場所に引っ越しするんじゃなくて、それぞれが #ActivityPub
に対応した場所に行けばいいじゃない？ 
「Twitterからの移住先なんてあるワケねぇぇぇんだよぉぉぉぉぉぉォォォ～～～～～～～～～～～～～！！」長すぎるポストなのに共感集まる - Togetter
https://togetter.com/li/2634207 -
System moved this topic from General Discussion on
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
La formula più bella del mondo (libro)
@libri - Un approccio umanistico alla famosa formula di Eulero
-
How Accurate is a 125 Year Old Resistance Standard?
Internals of the 1900 Evershed & Vignoles Ltd 1 ohm resistance standard. (Credit: Three-phase, YouTube)
Resistance standards are incredibly useful, but like so many precision references they require regular calibration, maintenance and certification to ensure that they stay within their datasheet tolerances. This raises the question of how well a resistance standard from the year 1900 performs after 125 years, without the benefits of modern modern engineering and standards. Cue the [Three-phase] YouTube channel testing a genuine Evershed & Vignoles Ltd one ohm resistance standard from 1900.With mahogany construction and brass contacts it sure looks stylish, though the unit was missing the shorting pin that goes in between the two sides. This was a common feature of e.g. resistance decade boxes of the era, where you inserted pins to connect resistors until you hit the desired total. Inside the one ohm standard is a platinoid resistor, which is an alloy of copper, nickel, tungsten, and zinc. Based on the broad arrow mark on the bottom this unit was apparently owned by the UK’s Ordnance Board, which was part of what was then called the War Office.
After a quick gander at the internals, the standard was hooked up to a Keithley DMM7510 digital bench meter. The resistance standard’s ‘datasheet’ is listed on top of the unit on the brass plaques, including the effect of temperature on its accuracy. Adjusting for this, the measured ~1.016 Ω was within 1.6% tolerance, with as sidenote that this was with the unit not having been cleaned or otherwise having had maintenance performed on it since it was last used in service. Definitely not a bad feat.
-
The only other thing I can think of are forced anti-features, like mandatory advertising, mandatory algorithmic feeds, or forced participation in LLM training.
Are there other things I'm missing?
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg I wonder, though: what would be some changes that would worry you, though? I'm having a hard time imagining what they would be.
The best I can come up with are features that are too complex for small development teams (e.g. oodles of mandatory APIs), or too resource intensive for small instances to support (e.g. required to handle terabytes of big data).
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg the changes I have marked for the next version are here.
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22Next%20version%22
I know there are some on there that Silverpill won't like, such as supporting IRIs for object IDs. I think it's worth having that conversation.
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg most importantly: no protocol is mandatory. No protocol revision is mandatory. If the work the WG does isn't useful, nobody has to implement it.
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg it's also worth noting that all discussions of the WG will be on a public mailing list. People can join the meetings, comment on drafts on GitHub. People interested in making more substantive contributions can become invited experts, even if they're not from a member organization.
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg I will fight pretty hard against breaking changes in ActivityPub. We have an active network with tens of millions of people and tens of thousands of servers. It's too late for breaking changes and it has been for a really long time. Expect changes like: describing required properties of activities better. How `replies` (and maybe `context`) work. References to OAuth, Webfinger and HTTP Signature.
