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.

ใใ€ใใ†ใ‹โ€ฆโ€ฆ๏ผ
Misskeyใซใฏใƒ‘ใƒผใ‚ฝใƒŠใƒฉใ‚คใ‚บใ•ใ‚ŒใŸใ‚ชใ‚นใ‚นใƒกTLใŒๅญ˜ๅœจใ—ใชใ„ใ‹ใ‚‰ใ€ใ‚ณใƒณใƒ†ใƒณใƒ„ใฎๆ‹กๆ•ฃใŒใƒฆใƒผใ‚ถใƒผไพๅญ˜ใซใชใ‚‹ใฎใ‹โ€ฆโ€ฆ๏ผ

1

ๆ—ฅๆœฌ็”ฃใ‚ณใƒณใƒ†ใƒณใƒ„ใ˜ใ‚ƒใชใ•ใใ†ใชใ‚ปใƒณใ‚นใ ใ—็„ก็†ใซๆ—ฅๆœฌ่ชžๅฏพๅฟœใ—ใ‚ˆใ†ใจใ—ใŸใ‚‰ใ“ใ†ใชใฃใกใ‚ƒใฃใŸใฟใŸใ„ใชๆ„Ÿใ˜ใ˜ใ‚ƒใชใ„ใ‹ใชใใจๆ€ใ†ใ‘ใฉ

1

์นจ๋Œ€ ๋ฐ–์€ ์œ„ํ—˜ํ•ด!ยทยทยท10๋ช… ์ค‘ 6๋ช…์€ โ€œ์ˆ˜๋ฉด ์™ธ ๋ชฉ์ ์œผ๋กœ๋„ ํ™œ์šฉโ€ www.khan.co.kr/article/2026... "์นจ๋Œ€ ์œ„ ํ™œ๋™์€ ์Šค๋งˆํŠธ ๊ธฐ๊ธฐ์™€๋„ ๋ฐ€์ ‘ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ์—ฐ๊ฒฐ๋ผ ์žˆ์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์นจ๋Œ€์—์„œ ์Šค๋งˆํŠธํฐ์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•œ๋‹ค๋Š” ์‘๋‹ต์ด 78.4%(๋ณต์ˆ˜ ์‘๋‹ต)๋กœ ๊ฐ€์žฅ ๋งŽ์•˜๊ณ , ์˜์ƒ ์‹œ์ฒญ(66.6%)์ด ๋’ค๋ฅผ ์ด์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด์–ด ํœด์‹(34.4%), ๋…์„œ(21.8%), ๋Œ€ํ™”ยทํ†ตํ™”(14.5%) ์ˆœ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค."

์นจ๋Œ€ ๋ฐ–์€ ์œ„ํ—˜ํ•ด!ยทยทยท10๋ช… ์ค‘ 6๋ช…์€ โ€œ์ˆ˜๋ฉด ์™ธ ๋ชฉ...

0
0
0
2
0
1
0

ๅฒฉๆ‰‹ๆ—ฅๅ ฑไผ็”ปใ€€ๆœชๆฅใธใ€€่ขซ็ฝๅœฐใ‹ใ‚‰ใฎๆ่จ€
web.archive.org/web/2013061402

ๆถˆใˆใกใ‚ƒใฃใฆใ‚‹ใ‘ใฉใ“ใ†ใ„ใ†่ฉฑๅฅฝใใชใ‚“ใ ใ‚ˆใญ
ๆ–ฐ่žใ‚„SNSใซใกใ‚‰ใฃใจไน—ใฃใฆใ‚‹ใ‚ˆใ†ใชๆฒขๅฑฑใฎไบบใ‚’ๆ•‘ใฃใŸไบบใŸใก

> ๅ›ฝ้š›้ญ้›ฃๅ‘จๆณขๆ•ฐใฏ็ฑณๅ›ฝๆฒฟๅฒธ่ญฆๅ‚™้šŠ๏ผˆใ‚ณใƒผใ‚นใƒˆใ‚ฌใƒผใƒ‰๏ผ‰ใชใฉๅ„ๅ›ฝๆฉŸ้–ขใฎไบคไฟกใงๆทท้›‘ใ—ใฆใ„ใ‚‹ใ“ใจใŒๅคšใ„ใŒใ€ๆฑ่ฐทๅฑ€้•ทใŒ้ฟ้›ฃ่€…ๅ็ฐฟใ‚’่ชญใฟไธŠใ’ใŸ้œ‡็ฝใฎๅคœใฏใ€ไธ–็•Œไธญใฎ็„ก็ทšๅฑ€ใŒ้‡œ็Ÿณใฎไบคไฟกใ‚’ๅฆจใ’ใชใ„ใ‚ˆใ†็ทŠๆ€ฅไปฅๅค–ใฎ้€šไฟกใ‚’ๆŽงใˆใ€ๆฐดใ‚’ๆ‰“ใฃใŸใ‚ˆใ†ใซ้™ใ‹ใ ใฃใŸ

0
0

์š”์ฆ˜๋“ค์–ด ์›นํŽ˜์ด์ง€ ๊ด‘๊ณ ์ค‘์—์„œ ๊ฐ€์žฅ ๋ถˆ์พŒํ•œ ๊ฒฝํ—˜์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•˜๋Š”๊ฑด ์••๋„์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ตฌ๊ธ€ ์• ๋“œ์„ผ์Šค์ธ๋“ฏ. ํฌ๋ฅด๋…ธ๋ฅผ ๋Œ€๋†“๊ณ  ๋…ธ์ถœํ•˜์ง€ ์•Š๋‚˜ ํ™”๋ฉด ์ ˆ๋ฐ˜์„ ๋“œ๋กญ๋‹ค์šด์œผ๋กœ ๊ฐ€๋ฆฌ์ง€ ์•Š๋‚˜ ์ง„์งœ ์‚ฌ๋žŒ ์—ด๋ฐ›๊ฒŒ ๋งŒ๋“ฆ.

0

JYP์—”ํ„ฐํ…Œ์ธ๋จผํŠธ๋Š” 10์ผ ์˜คํ›„ "๋ฐ•์ง„์˜์ด 26์ผ ์—ด๋ฆฌ๋Š” ์ฃผ์ฃผ์ดํšŒ์—์„œ ์‚ฌ๋‚ด์ด์‚ฌ ์žฌ์„ ์ž„ ์ ˆ์ฐจ๋ฅผ ๋ฐŸ์ง€ ์•Š์„ ์˜ˆ์ •"์ด๋ผ๊ณ  ๋ฐํ˜”๋‹ค.

JYP์—”ํ„ฐํ…Œ์ธ๋จผํŠธ๋Š” 10์ผ ์˜คํ›„ "๋ฐ•์ง„์˜์ด 26์ผ ์—ด๋ฆฌ...

0

ๅฝ“ๆ™‚ใฏใ‚ซใƒฉใ‚ชใ‚ฑๅบ—ใงๅคœๅ‹คใƒใ‚คใƒˆใ—ใฆใฆใ€ใกใ‚‡ใ†ใฉๅฏใ‚‹้ ƒใซๆบใ‚Œใฆใพใ—ใŸใ‚ใญ
ๅคœใซใชใฃใฆไธ€ๅฟœ้ก”ใ‚’ๅ‡บใ—ใซ่กŒใฃใŸใ‚‰ใใฎ้€”ไธญใฏๆฐด้“็ฎก็ ด่ฃ‚ใ—ใฆๆฐดๆตธใ—ใ ใ—ใ€้“่ทฏใŒ้š†่ตทใ—ใฆใ‚‹ใ—ใงๅ‡„ใ‹ใฃใŸใงใ™ใ‚
โ€‹:ameownod:โ€‹

ๅบ—ใซ็€ใ„ใŸใ‚‰ไฝ•ๆ•…ใ‹ๅบ—็•ช้ ผใ‚€ใจใ€1ๆ™ฉใ‚’้Žใ”ใ™ใ“ใจใซใชใ‚Šใพใ—ใŸใ‚
โ€‹:ablobcatblink:โ€‹

1
0
1
0
1
1

์ธ์šฉ์œผ๋กœ ์–ด๋А ๋ถ„์ด ์˜ฌ๋ ค์ฃผ์…จ๋Š”๋ฐ ์ •๋ง ์˜คํ”ผ์…œํ•˜๊ฒŒ ์ง€์—ญ ์•„์ด๋Œ์ธ ๋“ฏ. x.com/lumate1217/s...

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:a6qvfkbrohedqy3dt6k5mdv6/post/3mgp2v74psc25

0

The โ€œBOY HOWDY!โ€ heard around the room:

A 16.0-CURRENT boot environment on a 15.0-RELEASE made with OccamBSD imagine.sh and propagate.sh, which use makefs(8) and mkimg(1) internally, and packaged baseโ€ฆ

We can have nice things!

Iโ€™m sure there are remaining rough edges but IT CAN BE DONE.

Youโ€™re welcome.

Console output is uname -a, ZFS list of the two boot environments, and the single board computer-friendly partitioning.
0

ไปŠใ‚ขใ‚ซใ‚ฆใƒณใƒˆไฝœใ‚Šใพใ—ใŸใ€‚ใฏใ˜ใ‚ใพใ—ใฆใˆใˆใˆใˆใˆใˆใˆใˆใˆใˆใˆ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ
ใฟใชใ•ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚“๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผใ“ใ‚“ใซใกใฏ๏ผใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผไฝ•ใ‹ใ‚‰ใ—ใŸใ‚‰ใ„ใ„ใฎใ‹ใชใƒผใƒผใƒผใƒผใƒผใƒผ๏ผ๏ผใ‚ใ‚ŠใŒใจใ†ใ”ใ–ใ„ใพใ—ใŸใ‚ใ‚ใ‚ใ‚๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ๏ผ

1

โ€žFrieden wird es erst geben wenn Araber ihre Kinder mehr lieben als sie uns hassen. [...] Wer Israel angreift, bekommt es mit Deutschland zu tun.โ€

โ€” Cem ร–zdemir, 20.05.2021 auf einer Pro-Israel Demo, anfangs zitierend Golda Meir, ehemalige Ministerprรคsidentin Israels.

0
0

1. ๋ท”ํŽ˜๋Š” ์„œ์–‘ ๋ฌธ๋ฌผ์ด๋‹ค
2. ์ผ๋ณธ์— ๋ท”ํŽ˜๊ฐ€ ๋“ค์–ด์™”๋‹ค
3. ํ•œ์ž๋กœ ๋ฒˆ์—ญํ•ด์„œ ่‡ชๅŠฉ(์ง€์ฃ )์‹๋‹น์ด๋ผ๊ณ  ๋ถ€๋ฅด๊ธฐ ์‹œ์ž‘ํ•œ๋‹ค
4. ์ค‘๊ตญ์ด ๊ทธ๊ฑธ ์•Œ๊ฒŒ ๋๋‹ค
5. ์ €๊ฑด ่‡ชๅŠฉ(์ฏ”์ฅฌ)์‹๋‹น์ธ๊ฐ€๋ณด๋‹ค ํ•œ๋‹ค
6. ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ์…€ํ”„ ์„œ๋น„์Šค๊ฐ€ ๋“ค์–ด๊ฐ€๋Š” ๊ฒƒ๋“ค์€ ๋‹ค ่‡ชๅŠฉ๋ฅผ ๋ถ™์ด๊ธฐ ์‹œ์ž‘ํ–ˆ๋‹ค
7. ???
8. PROFIT!

0

๐Ÿ• 2026-03-11 06:00 UTC

๐Ÿ“ฐ ใƒ‡ใƒใƒƒใ‚ฐใฏใ‚‚ใ†ไบบ้–“ใฎไป•ไบ‹ใงใฏใชใใชใฃใŸ (๐Ÿ‘ 93)

๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง AI agents now handle most debugging by accessing production DBs, logs & Sentry directly. Multiple agents test hypotheses in parallel with peer review.
๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท AI ์—์ด์ „ํŠธ๊ฐ€ ํ”„๋กœ๋•์…˜ DB, ๋กœ๊ทธ, Sentry์— ์ง์ ‘ ์ ‘๊ทผํ•ด ๋Œ€๋ถ€๋ถ„์˜ ๋””๋ฒ„๊น…์„ ์ฒ˜๋ฆฌ. ์—ฌ๋Ÿฌ ์—์ด์ „ํŠธ๊ฐ€ ๊ฐ€์„ค์„ ๋ณ‘๋ ฌ๋กœ ๊ฒ€์ฆํ•˜๊ณ  ๋ฆฌ๋ทฐ.

๐Ÿ”— zenn.dev/dinii/articles/debugg

0
0
0

์†Œ์…œ๋ฏธ๋””์–ด ํŽ˜์ด์Šค๋ถ์˜ ๋ชจํšŒ์‚ฌ ๋ฉ”ํƒ€๊ฐ€ โ€˜์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ(AI)๋“ค์˜ ์†Œ์…œ๋ฏธ๋””์–ดโ€™ ๋ชฐํŠธ๋ถ์„ ์ธ์ˆ˜ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์ธ๊ฐ„์„ ๋Œ€์‹ ํ•˜๋Š” ์ธ๊ณต์ง€๋Šฅ ์—์ด์ „ํŠธ ์‹œ๋Œ€์˜ ์ƒํƒœ๊ณ„๋ฅผ ์„ ์ ํ•˜๋ ค๋Š” ์›€์ง์ž„์œผ๋กœ ํ’€์ด๋ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

๋ฉ”ํƒ€, โ€˜AI๋“ค์˜ ์†Œ์…œ๋ฏธ๋””์–ดโ€™ ๋ชฐํŠธ๋ถ ์ธ์ˆ˜โ€ฆ์ƒํƒœ๊ณ„ ์„ ์ ...

0
0

๋ ˆ๋ฐ”๋…ผ ์ง€์—ญ๋‹น๊ตญ ๋“ฑ์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅด๋ฉด ์•Œ๋ผ์ด ์‹ ๋ถ€๋Š” ์ „๋‚  ์ด์Šค๋ผ์—˜์˜ ํƒฑํฌ ๊ณต๊ฒฉ์œผ๋กœ ์‚ฌ๋งํ–ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋Š” ๋‹ค์นœ ๋ฏผ๊ฐ„์ธ๋“ค์„ ๋•๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ˜„์žฅ์— ๊ฐ”๋‹ค๊ฐ€ ๋’ค๋”ฐ๋ฅธ ๊ณต๊ฒฉ์— ํฌ์ƒ๋œ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ์ „ํ•ด์กŒ๋‹ค. ๋“ฑ๋ก 2026-03-10 17:57

๋ ˆ๋ฐ”๋…ผ ์ง€์—ญ๋‹น๊ตญ ๋“ฑ์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅด๋ฉด ์•Œ๋ผ์ด ์‹ ๋ถ€๋Š” ์ „๋‚  ์ด์Šค๋ผ...

0
0
0
1
0

I'm writing this in English.

Not because English is my first languageโ€”it isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said. The responsibility for that mistranslation would fall on me. It always does.

This is the thing Eugen Rochko's post misses, despite its good intentions.

@GargronEugen Rochko argues that LLMs are no substitute for human translators, and that people who think otherwise don't actually rely on translation. He's right about some of this. A machine-translated novel is not the same as one rendered by a skilled human translator. But the argument rests on a premise that only makes sense from a certain position: that translation is primarily about quality, about the aesthetic experience of reading literature in another language.

For many of us, translation is first about access.

The professional translation market doesn't scale to cover everything. It never has. What gets translatedโ€”and into which languagesโ€”follows the logic of cultural hegemony. Works from dominant Western languages flow outward, translated into everything. Works from East Asian languages trickle in, selectively, slowly, on someone else's schedule. The asymmetry isn't incidental; it's structural.

@GargronEugen Rochko notes, fairly, that machine translation existed decades before LLMs. But this is only half the story, and which half matters depends entirely on which languages you're talking about. European language pairs were reasonably serviceable with older tools. Koreanโ€“English, Japaneseโ€“English, Chineseโ€“English? Genuinely usable translation for these pairs arrived with the LLM era. Treating โ€œmachine translationโ€ as a monolithic technology with a uniform history erases the experience of everyone whose language sits far from the Indo-European center.

There's also something uncomfortable in the framing of the button-press thought experiment: โ€œI would erase LLMs even if it took machine translation with it.โ€ For someone whose language has always been peripheral, that button looks very different. It's not an abstract philosophical position; it's a statement about whose access to information is expendable.

I want to be clear: none of this is an argument that LLMs are good, or that the harms @GargronEugen Rochko describes aren't real. They are. But a critique of AI doesn't become more universal by ignoring whose languages have always been on the margins. If anything, a serious critique of AI's political economy should be more attentive to those asymmetries, not less.

The fact that I'm writing this in English, carefully, so it won't be misreadโ€”that's not incidental to my argument. That is my argument.

5
13
0
0
0
0
2
0

I'm writing this in English.

Not because English is my first languageโ€”it isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said. The responsibility for that mistranslation would fall on me. It always does.

This is the thing Eugen Rochko's post misses, despite its good intentions.

@GargronEugen Rochko argues that LLMs are no substitute for human translators, and that people who think otherwise don't actually rely on translation. He's right about some of this. A machine-translated novel is not the same as one rendered by a skilled human translator. But the argument rests on a premise that only makes sense from a certain position: that translation is primarily about quality, about the aesthetic experience of reading literature in another language.

For many of us, translation is first about access.

The professional translation market doesn't scale to cover everything. It never has. What gets translatedโ€”and into which languagesโ€”follows the logic of cultural hegemony. Works from dominant Western languages flow outward, translated into everything. Works from East Asian languages trickle in, selectively, slowly, on someone else's schedule. The asymmetry isn't incidental; it's structural.

@GargronEugen Rochko notes, fairly, that machine translation existed decades before LLMs. But this is only half the story, and which half matters depends entirely on which languages you're talking about. European language pairs were reasonably serviceable with older tools. Koreanโ€“English, Japaneseโ€“English, Chineseโ€“English? Genuinely usable translation for these pairs arrived with the LLM era. Treating โ€œmachine translationโ€ as a monolithic technology with a uniform history erases the experience of everyone whose language sits far from the Indo-European center.

There's also something uncomfortable in the framing of the button-press thought experiment: โ€œI would erase LLMs even if it took machine translation with it.โ€ For someone whose language has always been peripheral, that button looks very different. It's not an abstract philosophical position; it's a statement about whose access to information is expendable.

I want to be clear: none of this is an argument that LLMs are good, or that the harms @GargronEugen Rochko describes aren't real. They are. But a critique of AI doesn't become more universal by ignoring whose languages have always been on the margins. If anything, a serious critique of AI's political economy should be more attentive to those asymmetries, not less.

The fact that I'm writing this in English, carefully, so it won't be misreadโ€”that's not incidental to my argument. That is my argument.

5
13
0
0
0

I'm writing this in English.

Not because English is my first languageโ€”it isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said. The responsibility for that mistranslation would fall on me. It always does.

This is the thing Eugen Rochko's post misses, despite its good intentions.

@GargronEugen Rochko argues that LLMs are no substitute for human translators, and that people who think otherwise don't actually rely on translation. He's right about some of this. A machine-translated novel is not the same as one rendered by a skilled human translator. But the argument rests on a premise that only makes sense from a certain position: that translation is primarily about quality, about the aesthetic experience of reading literature in another language.

For many of us, translation is first about access.

The professional translation market doesn't scale to cover everything. It never has. What gets translatedโ€”and into which languagesโ€”follows the logic of cultural hegemony. Works from dominant Western languages flow outward, translated into everything. Works from East Asian languages trickle in, selectively, slowly, on someone else's schedule. The asymmetry isn't incidental; it's structural.

@GargronEugen Rochko notes, fairly, that machine translation existed decades before LLMs. But this is only half the story, and which half matters depends entirely on which languages you're talking about. European language pairs were reasonably serviceable with older tools. Koreanโ€“English, Japaneseโ€“English, Chineseโ€“English? Genuinely usable translation for these pairs arrived with the LLM era. Treating โ€œmachine translationโ€ as a monolithic technology with a uniform history erases the experience of everyone whose language sits far from the Indo-European center.

There's also something uncomfortable in the framing of the button-press thought experiment: โ€œI would erase LLMs even if it took machine translation with it.โ€ For someone whose language has always been peripheral, that button looks very different. It's not an abstract philosophical position; it's a statement about whose access to information is expendable.

I want to be clear: none of this is an argument that LLMs are good, or that the harms @GargronEugen Rochko describes aren't real. They are. But a critique of AI doesn't become more universal by ignoring whose languages have always been on the margins. If anything, a serious critique of AI's political economy should be more attentive to those asymmetries, not less.

The fact that I'm writing this in English, carefully, so it won't be misreadโ€”that's not incidental to my argument. That is my argument.

5
13
0

I'm writing this in English.

Not because English is my first languageโ€”it isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said. The responsibility for that mistranslation would fall on me. It always does.

This is the thing Eugen Rochko's post misses, despite its good intentions.

@GargronEugen Rochko argues that LLMs are no substitute for human translators, and that people who think otherwise don't actually rely on translation. He's right about some of this. A machine-translated novel is not the same as one rendered by a skilled human translator. But the argument rests on a premise that only makes sense from a certain position: that translation is primarily about quality, about the aesthetic experience of reading literature in another language.

For many of us, translation is first about access.

The professional translation market doesn't scale to cover everything. It never has. What gets translatedโ€”and into which languagesโ€”follows the logic of cultural hegemony. Works from dominant Western languages flow outward, translated into everything. Works from East Asian languages trickle in, selectively, slowly, on someone else's schedule. The asymmetry isn't incidental; it's structural.

@GargronEugen Rochko notes, fairly, that machine translation existed decades before LLMs. But this is only half the story, and which half matters depends entirely on which languages you're talking about. European language pairs were reasonably serviceable with older tools. Koreanโ€“English, Japaneseโ€“English, Chineseโ€“English? Genuinely usable translation for these pairs arrived with the LLM era. Treating โ€œmachine translationโ€ as a monolithic technology with a uniform history erases the experience of everyone whose language sits far from the Indo-European center.

There's also something uncomfortable in the framing of the button-press thought experiment: โ€œI would erase LLMs even if it took machine translation with it.โ€ For someone whose language has always been peripheral, that button looks very different. It's not an abstract philosophical position; it's a statement about whose access to information is expendable.

I want to be clear: none of this is an argument that LLMs are good, or that the harms @GargronEugen Rochko describes aren't real. They are. But a critique of AI doesn't become more universal by ignoring whose languages have always been on the margins. If anything, a serious critique of AI's political economy should be more attentive to those asymmetries, not less.

The fact that I'm writing this in English, carefully, so it won't be misreadโ€”that's not incidental to my argument. That is my argument.

5
13
0
0
0
0
0
0

๐Ÿซง socialcoding.. shared the below article:

ap, the ActivityPub API command-line client

Evan Prodromou @evanprodromou@socialwebfoundation.org

As part of my book "ActivityPub: Programming for the Social Web", I created a coding example to show how to program for the ActivityPub API. ap is a command-line client, written in Python, for doing basic tasks with ActivityPub.For example, you can log into a server using this command: ap login yourname@yourserver.example Once you're logged in, you can follow someone: ap follow other@different.example Or, you could post some content: ap create note --public "Hello, World" This isn't [โ€ฆ]

Read more โ†’
0

๊ทธ ์—ญ์‹œ ์ฒด์ฝ”๋ฅผ '๊ฐ์› ์ฐธ๊ฐ€๊ตญ' ์ •๋„๋กœ ๋ฐ”๋ผ๋ณด๋Š” ์‹œ์„ ์„ ๊ฑฐ๋ถ€ํ•œ๋‹ค. ์ฒด๋ฅด๋ฒค์นด๋Š” "์šฐ๋ฆฌ๋Š” ์•ผ๊ตฌ๋ฅผ ํ•˜๋Ÿฌ ์™”๋‹ค. ์ฐธ๊ฐ€ ์ž๊ฒฉ์„ ์–ป์€ ๋ฐ๋Š” ์ด์œ ๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๊ฐ€ ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ์ง์—…์„ ๊ฐ€์กŒ๋‹ค๋Š” ์‚ฌ์‹ค์ด ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๊ฐ€ ์—ฌ๊ธฐ๊นŒ์ง€ ์˜ค๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ์ด๋ฃฌ ์„ฑ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ์—†๋˜ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋งŒ๋“ค์ง€๋Š” ์•Š๋Š”๋‹ค"๊ณ  ๋ฐํ˜”๋‹ค.

๊ทธ ์—ญ์‹œ ์ฒด์ฝ”๋ฅผ '๊ฐ์› ์ฐธ๊ฐ€๊ตญ' ์ •๋„๋กœ ๋ฐ”๋ผ๋ณด๋Š” ์‹œ์„ ์„...

0
0