#ActivityPub is getting its first formal update path since 2018.
Uncategorized
30
Posts
11
Posters
4
Views
-
The only way compromise happens is if there are other players of similar size in the committee to counterbalance a large player. If this is Meta and a bunch of nonprofits, Meta either dictates the standard or forks it and effectively replaces it. (2/2)
@slyborg @Connected Places If Mastodon really tries to shape ActivityPub around Mastodon and only Mastodon, you can expect quite some opposition from and head-butting with players such as Flipboard, Ghost and especially Automattic (WordPress).
The same who must have pressured Mastodon into "better" support of Article-type objects. That's limited to Mastodon's previews now including the summary as well, but the full long-form HTML rendering with all bells and whistles which not only they wanted is something that Mastodon will never touch.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta -
#ActivityPub is getting its first formal update path since 2018. I wrote about why this matters, how this leads to some strange and funny power dynamics, and about who actually participate
https://connectedplaces.online/reports/fediverse-report-148-on-protocol-governance/
@fediversereport If they are smart they will fix a raft of fundamental UX pitfalls in current ActivityPub by defining a protocol handler for it.
Email needed its protocol handler spec while it was getting established – and arguably still does – and I do think this is one of the ways in which ActivityPub is "like email".
-
@julian @fediversereport AP is an ugly duckling.
Maybe it shouldn't be a Web standard, but sit apart from (and inter-operate with) it instead. Maybe the right org is the IETF...
-
@fediversereport If they are smart they will fix a raft of fundamental UX pitfalls in current ActivityPub by defining a protocol handler for it.
Email needed its protocol handler spec while it was getting established – and arguably still does – and I do think this is one of the ways in which ActivityPub is "like email".
@tasket@infosec.exchange an official protocol handler would help a lot. Today there is the option of introducing a web protocol handler but the UX for it is pretty dogshit (Piefed recently implemented it, and the number of dialogues was too damn high!)
That said I don't know if PWAs can register against non-web protocol handlers. That would be useful for sites like NodeBB.
-
@julian There are several dozens of actively maintained ActivityPub implementations, I think it is not difficult to find two implementers among them, especially if they will be paid to implement a proposed change / extension (as we have seen with the E2EE proposal).
@slyborg @evan @connected-places @fediversereport @ArneBab @alexchapman
-
@julian IMO there's no reason why a web browser should understand where to open fedi links, without having any other type of app properly address those links as well.
What if someone in an instant messenger or email app sends you a link to fedi content?
Defining it at the system level (again, as is done with email) removes critical uncertainties.
Fedi has other big UX issues as well. Celebrities don't like it here because the TL mechanics make them unintentionally annoying... users follow then later mute them because their posts are popular for a while and we have to see them each and every time they're boosted (or manually silence those posts). Allowing the selection of some transparent algorithms could fix this.
-
@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.
-
@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.
@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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).
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?
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.
