What is Hackers' Pub?

Hackers' Pub is a place for software engineers to share their knowledge and experience with each other. It's also an ActivityPub-enabled social network, so you can follow your favorite hackers in the fediverse and get their latest posts in your feed.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

東京人總認為只有東京才算是日本,覺得東京是日本的中心。在他們心裡,東京,差不多就位於日本列島的中心位置啊!

他們一點都不在意江戶幕府之前,東京還是一片荒蕪的鄉下,一味地以為所有的資訊都是從東京發出,整個日本都在東京的管轄之下。

有趣的是,IT 企業的總部不管設立在哪個縣市,都能向全世界散發訊息、地價也比較便宜,卻還是選擇設立在六本木或 Bit Valley,而這就是東京人認為東京是日本中心點的證據。明明不需要特別在東京設立辦公室,卻還是堅信,資訊就該從東京發送才合理。

https://readmoo.pse.is/7j7daq
https://readmoo.pse.is/7j7dpn

0
2
0
0

Sharing a first public beta of a new project: The Post Tomorrow Land's Morning Post is an experimental, hyper-local, multilingual, post-fictional news portal. Based on climate model projections and scenarios, large language models are prompted to craft stories of a speculative future.

Explore post-tomorrow's headlines today at:
posttomorrow.land

0
2
0
0

東京人總認為只有東京才算是日本,覺得東京是日本的中心。在他們心裡,東京,差不多就位於日本列島的中心位置啊!

他們一點都不在意江戶幕府之前,東京還是一片荒蕪的鄉下,一味地以為所有的資訊都是從東京發出,整個日本都在東京的管轄之下。

有趣的是,IT 企業的總部不管設立在哪個縣市,都能向全世界散發訊息、地價也比較便宜,卻還是選擇設立在六本木或 Bit Valley,而這就是東京人認為東京是日本中心點的證據。明明不需要特別在東京設立辦公室,卻還是堅信,資訊就該從東京發送才合理。

https://readmoo.pse.is/7j7daq
https://readmoo.pse.is/7j7dpn

0

如果要不帶性別稱呼別人,佛教還有大德、施主這種稱呼
基督教感覺還是弟兄或是姐妹,也是帶性別
政黨可以用同志
職場可以用職稱
台灣的網路可以用大大
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2

After reviewing FEP-5624: Per-object reply control policies and GoToSocial's interaction policy spec, I find myself leaning toward the latter for long-term considerations, though both have merit.

FEP-5624 is admirably focused and simpler to implement, which I appreciate. However, 's approach seems to offer some architectural advantages:

  1. The three-tier permission model (allow/require approval/deny) feels more flexible than binary allow/deny
  2. Separating approval objects from interactions appears more secure against forgery
  3. The explicit handling of edge cases (mentioned users, post authors) provides clearer semantics
  4. The extensible framework allows for handling diverse interaction types, not just replies

I wonder if creating an that extracts GoToSocial's interaction policy design into a standalone standard might be worthwhile. It could potentially serve as a more comprehensive foundation for access control in .

This is merely my initial impression though. I'd be curious to hear other developers' perspectives on these approaches.

4
0

After reviewing FEP-5624: Per-object reply control policies and GoToSocial's interaction policy spec, I find myself leaning toward the latter for long-term considerations, though both have merit.

FEP-5624 is admirably focused and simpler to implement, which I appreciate. However, 's approach seems to offer some architectural advantages:

  1. The three-tier permission model (allow/require approval/deny) feels more flexible than binary allow/deny
  2. Separating approval objects from interactions appears more secure against forgery
  3. The explicit handling of edge cases (mentioned users, post authors) provides clearer semantics
  4. The extensible framework allows for handling diverse interaction types, not just replies

I wonder if creating an that extracts GoToSocial's interaction policy design into a standalone standard might be worthwhile. It could potentially serve as a more comprehensive foundation for access control in .

This is merely my initial impression though. I'd be curious to hear other developers' perspectives on these approaches.

4
0
0

After reviewing FEP-5624: Per-object reply control policies and GoToSocial's interaction policy spec, I find myself leaning toward the latter for long-term considerations, though both have merit.

FEP-5624 is admirably focused and simpler to implement, which I appreciate. However, 's approach seems to offer some architectural advantages:

  1. The three-tier permission model (allow/require approval/deny) feels more flexible than binary allow/deny
  2. Separating approval objects from interactions appears more secure against forgery
  3. The explicit handling of edge cases (mentioned users, post authors) provides clearer semantics
  4. The extensible framework allows for handling diverse interaction types, not just replies

I wonder if creating an that extracts GoToSocial's interaction policy design into a standalone standard might be worthwhile. It could potentially serve as a more comprehensive foundation for access control in .

This is merely my initial impression though. I'd be curious to hear other developers' perspectives on these approaches.

4
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

After reviewing FEP-5624: Per-object reply control policies and GoToSocial's interaction policy spec, I find myself leaning toward the latter for long-term considerations, though both have merit.

FEP-5624 is admirably focused and simpler to implement, which I appreciate. However, 's approach seems to offer some architectural advantages:

  1. The three-tier permission model (allow/require approval/deny) feels more flexible than binary allow/deny
  2. Separating approval objects from interactions appears more secure against forgery
  3. The explicit handling of edge cases (mentioned users, post authors) provides clearer semantics
  4. The extensible framework allows for handling diverse interaction types, not just replies

I wonder if creating an that extracts GoToSocial's interaction policy design into a standalone standard might be worthwhile. It could potentially serve as a more comprehensive foundation for access control in .

This is merely my initial impression though. I'd be curious to hear other developers' perspectives on these approaches.

4
1
3
0

There was that story last month about the Turks demanding that certain opposition Bluesky accounts be silenced. They were (mostly, sort of, it’s complicated). I dug into it and came away with an essay on what we want and don’t want concerning censorship or no-censorship and how well and the might give us that: tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/20

0
0
0
0
0