Pika

I’m waiting for some government to outlaw collecting the information in general outside of official government agencies. I would love to see big tech squirm as they try to figure out a valid way to harvest the data in one country, but prevent it in another.

Honestly it sounds like an amazing way to rack of fine money due to violation notices.

For ID scans, Discord says that documents “are deleted quickly.”

Just a few months ago they had a data leak which proved that they were indeed /not/ deleting documents and ID’s like they had been claiming.

Granted in that case it was mostly countries that force keeping that data but, I’m sick of companies lying and saying “lol yea we defo delete the data after”

sadly, it’s a little more complex than just enabling it. The supported self host deployment uses docker, and the docker containers that are available don’t contain the interfaces for voice or video calling as they are not up to date.

If I understand it right, to enable it would mean you need to either pull the source yourself and run it off of docker, or make a custom docker image using a version of stoat web that contains the ability to do voice calls.

reading the draft of the linked issue, it looks like the author isn’t doing voice call for the reason that they don’t know the proper way to integrate it into the docker image.

So to answer it: yes it looks like you can use voice servers on the current self hosted model, but you can’t use pre-existing docker images, and it will require you to manually add the new web UI in and patch where needed.

Just a fair warning in reply to this that the self-hosted version of Stoat doesn’t currently have voice chat. It’s an open issue that’s currently paused until they can finish their rework.

If you have the skill for it, it seems like you can patch work the existing voice chat back in, but it’s not part of their initial setup and there’s no instructions on how to do so properly

TIL I even had an application key there. I don’t think I’ve ever used it.

Personally, it seems like it’s trustworthy again. The previous owner of the repo did eventually admit that they authorized the transfer, but, The entire transfer process was extremely sketchy and had no chain of custody or trust. It was just the repository got deleted, and then a few days later showed under a whole blank state again with a user with no profile, no contribution history, and it was just a trust me bro, I knew the original maintainer look I have the keys to prove it.

The maintainer of the Google Play build of it seems to trust them though, and they are established in the community, plus they archived their sync thing builds again in favor of just using one repo, so it’s likely fine.

For future people wondering about it as well, it doesn’t help that the new maintainer of the app has deleted every issue that had to do with the migration, so you no longer can research the issue for yourself. The only information you have available to you is the discussion chain listed on the community forums, But any type of issue that they link to were deleted.

Personally though, I plan on keeping my current version pinned to prior to the transfer until either I’m forced to update due to bugs or I feel comfortable with the current maintainer again. I’m not sure how long that will be.

For an app that contains very sensitive information, I was not impressed with how the transfer process underwent.

don’t take me wrong. I would love an alternative as well! I just think that the personality of the fediverse as a whole goes against what companies are actually looking for in partners

An LI alternative wouldn’t be super helpful, you would need mainstream and companies to want to use it, and any open alternative would fail to meet that goal. The wants of the employee and the wants of the employer don’t mix, thats why LinkedIn looks so bad to the employee. It’s not meant to be for the employee, its meant to be for the employer. If it was the other way around the employers wouldn’t use it.

I should ask them at some point how it is now that its been deployed for a bit. I wouldn’t expect so either based off how I’ve seen open sourced projects using stuff like that, but they also haven’t been complaining about it screwing up at all.

That was my general thought process prior to them telling me how the system worked as well. I had seen claude workflows which does similar, but to that level I had not seen before. It was an eye opener.

Thank you for expanding on it. That was a pretty interesting read, gotta love indecisiveness in your standards

can you elaborate on type=“datetime-local” not existing? It’s been supported in almost every mainstream browser since basically 2012. The last mainstream to adopt it was Safari in 2021. There is argument that FF didn’t have proper support till 2021 as well but, that’s because it was lacking the “time” part of the element. So they modified how it worked for awhile to work like the type=“date” element, that has since been resolved.

being said, I do agree with you on a lot of those. it would be nice to have some form of UI validation. That is one of it’s flaws that could be expanded on. a disabled dates or invalid days tag on the input would be a lot easier (like allowedDays being a comma seperated list of daynames or numbers like how the time standard is), but also add a lot of complexity to it for something that should be being validated via scripts both server and client side. Not all browsers have the clear button as well which is a problem because it’s an extra step when you do make a mistake on it. They do offer a valid range tag though to allocate valid ranges for dates, but it’s so primitive that for a scheduler it can’t really be used unless its on a week by week basis

I do agree, LLM generated code is inaccurate, which is why they have to have the throw it back in stage and a human eye looking at it.

They told me their main concern is that they aren’t sure they are going to properly understand the code the AI is spitting out to be able to properly audit it (which is fair), then of course any issue with the code will fall on them since it’s their job to give final say of “yes this is good”

The scary part is how it already somewhat is.

My friend is currently(or at least considering) job hunting because they added AI to their flow and it does everything past the initial issue report.

the flow is now: issue logged -> AI formats and tags the issue -> AI makes the patch -> AI tests the patch and throws it back if it doesn’t work -> AI lints the final product once working -> AI submits the patch as pull.

Their job has been downscaled from being the one to organize, assign and work on code to an over-glorified code auditor who looks at pull requests and says “yes this is good” or “no send this back in”

I know exactly what date UI you are talking about and it’s a firm agree. Whoever decided that a date UI needed to have the inability to select a year without hitting back 3 times, then ontop of that decided to make it so it undid your month and day selection when you did so, did the world a massive disfavor designing it.

What is wrong with the simple type=“datetime-local” or type=“date” UI’s that every mainstream browser has native. It’s 3 clicks, you can specify the year at the top, and then month & date in the main body. Why even introduce layers to it. Have everything on the same layer.

more than partially actually. 85% of Mozillas income comes from search engine deals.Then when you look at the revenue reports for the year, its stated in it that.

Approximately 85% and 81% of Mozilla’s revenues from customers with contracts were derived from one customer for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. Receivables from that one customer represented 70% and 64% of the December 31, 2023 and 2022 outstanding receivables, respectively.

I’m no accountant and while Google is not specified. That sounds like the signs are pointing at google being 85% of the projects income.

yea was about to say the only difference between this article and the US is that in the US it would be death in the office or at home not the hospital bed.

They are very nice. They share kernelspace so I can understand wanting isolation but, the ability to just throw a base Debian container on, assign it a resource pool and resource allocation, and install a service directly to it, while having it isolated from everything without having to use Docker’s emphereal by design system(which does have its perks but I hate troubleshooting containers on it) or having to use a full VM is nice.

And yes, by Docker file I would mean either the Docker file or the compose file(usually compose). By straight on the container I mean on the container, My CTs don’t run Docker period, aside from the one that has the primary Docker stack. So I don’t have that layer to worry about on most CT’s

As for the memory thing, I was just mentioning that Docker does the same thing that containers do if you don’t have enough RAM for what’s been provisioned. The way I had taken that original post is that specifying 2 gigs of RAM to the point the system exhausts it’s ram would cause corruption and the system crashes, which is true but docker falls for the same issue if the system exhausts it’s ram. That’s all I meant by it. Also cgroups sound cool, I gotta say I haven’t messed with them a whole lot. I wish proxmox had a better resource share system to designate a specific group as having X amount of max resources, and then have the CT or vm’s be using those pools.

Yea I plan to try out the new Proxmox version at some point to try that out, thank you again.

I think we might have a different definition of Virtualized and containers. I use IBM’s and Comptias definitions.

IBM’s definition is

Virtualization is a technology that enables the creation of virtual environments from a single physical machine, allowing for more efficient use of resources by distributing them across computing environments.

The IBM page themselves acknowledges that containers are virtualization on their Containers vs Virtual Machines page. I call virtualization as an abstraction layer between the hardware and the system being run.

Comptia’s definition of containers would be valid as well. Which states that containers are a virtualization layer that operates at the OS level and isolates the OS from the file system. Whereas virtual machines are an abstraction layer between the hardware and the OS.

I grew this terminology from my comptia networking+ book from 12 years ago though, which classifies Virtualization as “a process that adds a layer of abstraction between hardware and the system” which is a dated term since OS level virtualization such as Containers wasn’t really a thing then.