A tiny mouse, a hacker.

  • 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • It’s not. It just doesn’t get enough hits for that 86k to matter. Fun fact: most AI crawlers hit /robots.txt first, they get served a bee movie script, fail to interpret it, and leave, without crawling further. If I’d let them crawl the entire site, that’d result in about two megabytes of traffic. By serving a 86kb file that doesn’t pass as robots.txt and has no links, I actually save bandwidth. Not on a single request, but by preventing a hundred others.



  • That would result in those fediverse servers theoretically requesting 333333 * 114MB = ~38Gigabyte/s.

    On the other hand, if the site linked would not serve garbage, and would fit like 1Mb like a normal site, then this would be only ~325mb/s, and while that’s still high, it’s not the end of the world. If it’s a site that actually puts effort into being optimized, and a request fits in ~300kb (still a lot, in my book, for what is essentially a preview, with only tiny parts of the actual content loaded), then we’re looking at 95mb/s.

    If said site puts effort into making their previews reasonable, and serve ~30kb, then that’s 9mb/s. It’s 3190 in the Year of Our Lady Discord. A potato can serve that.


  • I only serve bloat to AI crawlers.

    map $http_user_agent $badagent {
      default     0;
      # list of AI crawler user agents in "~crawler 1" format
    }
    
    if ($badagent) {
       rewrite ^ /gpt;
    }
    
    location /gpt {
      proxy_pass https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse163/20wi/files/lectures/L04/bee-movie.txt;
    }
    

    …is a wonderful thing to put in my nginx config. (you can try curl -Is -H "User-Agent: GPTBot" https://chronicles.mad-scientist.club/robots.txt | grep content-length: to see it in action ;))



  • algernon@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.mlNixOS forked
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s plenty, but I do not wish to hijack this thread, so… have a look at the Forgejo 7.0 release notes, the PRs it links to along notable features (and a boatload of bugfixes, many of which aren’t in Gitea). Then compare when (and if) similar features or fixes were implemented in Gitea.

    The major difference (apart from governance, and on a technical level) between Gitea and Forgejo is that Forgejo cherry picks from Gitea weekly (being a hard fork doesn’t mean all ties are severed, it means that development happens independently). Gitea does not cherry pick from Forgejo. They could, the license permits it, and it even permits sublicensing, so it’s not an obstacle for Gitea Cloud or Gitea EE, either. They just don’t.



  • It’s about 5 times longer than previous releases were maintained for, and is an experiment. If there’s a need for a longer term support branch, there will be one. It’s pointless to start maintaining an 5+ year branch with 0 users and a handful of volunteers, none of whom are paid for doing the maintenance.

    So yes, in that context, 15 months is long.


  • A lot of people do. Especially on GitHub, where you can just browse a random repository, find a file you want to change, hit the edit button, and edit it right there in the browser (it does the forking for you behind the scenes). For people unfamiliar with git, that’s huge.

    It’s also a great boon when you don’t want to clone the repo locally! For example, when I’m on a slow, metered connection, I have no desire to spend 10+ minutes (and half of my data cap) for a repo to clone, just so I can fix a typo. With the web editor, I can accomplish the same thing with very little network traffic, in about 1 minute.

    While normally I prefer the comfort of my Emacs, there are situations where a workflow that happens entirely in the browser is simply more practical.





  • There’s a very easy solution that lets you rest easy that your instance is how you want it to be: don’t do open registration. Vet the people you invite, and job done. If you want to be even safer, don’t post publicly - followers only. If you require follower approval, you can do some basic checks to see that whoever sends a follow request is someone you’re okay interacting with. This works on the microblogging side of the Fediverse quite well, today.

    What I’m trying to say is that with registrations requiring admin approval gets you 99% of the way there, without needing anything more complex than that.




  • The single best thing I like about Zed is how they unironically put up a video on their homepage where they take a perfectly fine function, and butcher it with irrelevant features using CoPilot, and in the process:

    • Make the function’s name not match what it is actually doing.
    • Hardcode three special cases for no good reason.
    • Write no tests at all.
    • Update the documentation, but make the short version of it misleading, suggesting it accepts all named colors, rather than just three. (The long description clarifies that, so it’s not completely bad.)
    • Show how engineering the prompt to do what they want takes more time than just writing the code in the first place.

    And that’s supposed to be a feature. I wonder how they’d feel if someone sent them a pull request done in a similar manner, resulting in similarly bad code.

    I think I’ll remain firmly in the “if FPS is an important metric in your editor, you’re doing something wrong” camp, and will also steer clear of anything that hypes up the plagiarism parrots as something that’d be a net win.



  • Nevertheless, as Bluesky grows, there are likely to be multiple professionally-run indexers for various purposes. For example, a company that performs sentiment analysis on social media activity about brands could easily create a whole-network index that provides insights to their clients.

    (source)

    Is that supposed to be a selling point? Because I’d like to stay far, far away from that, thank you very much.