xori
@verworn.ca
nothing I say is original, turns out, most others are the same and claim not to be.
I think "signature" implies 𝕦𝕟𝕚𝕢𝕦𝕖, "flagship" implies "key to survival"
December 14, 2025 at 7:08 PM
I think "signature" implies 𝕦𝕟𝕚𝕢𝕦𝕖, "flagship" implies "key to survival"
Don't get me wrong, I don't like app passwords, but I can at least revoke them.
December 9, 2025 at 9:00 PM
Don't get me wrong, I don't like app passwords, but I can at least revoke them.
A reminder as well that you can just plug in a hard drive to that Android device
December 8, 2025 at 3:57 PM
A reminder as well that you can just plug in a hard drive to that Android device
Ok, I was just getting notified via label that you didn't have more than a 4 hour posting break in the last 24 hours. Which is a bot flag normally but I know you aren't
December 4, 2025 at 3:46 AM
Ok, I was just getting notified via label that you didn't have more than a 4 hour posting break in the last 24 hours. Which is a bot flag normally but I know you aren't
that's a cyber deck I would put in my pocket
July 3, 2025 at 10:41 PM
that's a cyber deck I would put in my pocket
I'm sure many people are content with the AI summary at the top answering their question. hallucinations or not. I know personally I do a lot of 0 click searches and I don't always leave unhappy.
May 2, 2025 at 5:26 PM
I'm sure many people are content with the AI summary at the top answering their question. hallucinations or not. I know personally I do a lot of 0 click searches and I don't always leave unhappy.
Do you need to be a pro user? I've been using Dato for this
April 4, 2025 at 6:19 PM
Do you need to be a pro user? I've been using Dato for this
Or at least migrate from a did:web to a did:plc. Something like the did:web owner at 2025-03-01, as proven by signature of https cert owned at 2025-03-1, has stated that did:web:a.su should be treated as equal to did:plc:deadbeef after 2025-03-01.
March 14, 2025 at 9:04 PM
Or at least migrate from a did:web to a did:plc. Something like the did:web owner at 2025-03-01, as proven by signature of https cert owned at 2025-03-1, has stated that did:web:a.su should be treated as equal to did:plc:deadbeef after 2025-03-01.
I'm not claiming this is a good idea! Just that there I think there _can_ exist a way for did:web users to migrate domains.
March 14, 2025 at 8:58 PM
I'm not claiming this is a good idea! Just that there I think there _can_ exist a way for did:web users to migrate domains.
so `did:plc` users are fine, `did:web:*.su` users are the ones screwed.
SXGs are signed request/response pairs, perfect for key-value. So for example, `migrator.network` serving an archive signed by last HTTPS cert holder `person.su` saying `/.well-known/did.json={ alsoKnownAs: "person.me", ... }`
SXGs are signed request/response pairs, perfect for key-value. So for example, `migrator.network` serving an archive signed by last HTTPS cert holder `person.su` saying `/.well-known/did.json={ alsoKnownAs: "person.me", ... }`
March 14, 2025 at 8:43 PM
so `did:plc` users are fine, `did:web:*.su` users are the ones screwed.
SXGs are signed request/response pairs, perfect for key-value. So for example, `migrator.network` serving an archive signed by last HTTPS cert holder `person.su` saying `/.well-known/did.json={ alsoKnownAs: "person.me", ... }`
SXGs are signed request/response pairs, perfect for key-value. So for example, `migrator.network` serving an archive signed by last HTTPS cert holder `person.su` saying `/.well-known/did.json={ alsoKnownAs: "person.me", ... }`
I swear Google was building something to try and save AMP. So that they could serve AMP web pages from their CDN under the domain of the original website. Which I feel like is exactly what is needed here.
March 14, 2025 at 12:45 AM
I swear Google was building something to try and save AMP. So that they could serve AMP web pages from their CDN under the domain of the original website. Which I feel like is exactly what is needed here.
it'd be awesome if we could use signed HAR files using the certificates that we have now, that those relays could then send on their behalf. I swear I saw this, signed archives that could be uploaded to a CDN and still be served over https and the native domain without sharing private keys with CDN
March 13, 2025 at 11:47 PM
it'd be awesome if we could use signed HAR files using the certificates that we have now, that those relays could then send on their behalf. I swear I saw this, signed archives that could be uploaded to a CDN and still be served over https and the native domain without sharing private keys with CDN
I'm excited too, but mostly I think it will hinge on how pull requests get implemented. Right now tangled has recreated an ssh hosted bare git repo with git-web.
They still need to implement a simpler solution than a public email group with patches, which is a low bar to overcome UX-wise imo.
They still need to implement a simpler solution than a public email group with patches, which is a low bar to overcome UX-wise imo.
March 9, 2025 at 12:21 AM
I'm excited too, but mostly I think it will hinge on how pull requests get implemented. Right now tangled has recreated an ssh hosted bare git repo with git-web.
They still need to implement a simpler solution than a public email group with patches, which is a low bar to overcome UX-wise imo.
They still need to implement a simpler solution than a public email group with patches, which is a low bar to overcome UX-wise imo.
At least there's documentation.
December 30, 2024 at 12:45 AM
At least there's documentation.