Sadly, that's not code Linus wrote. Nor one he merged. (It's from git, copied from rsync, committed by Junio)
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.
I don't think serving 86 kilobytes to AI crawlers will make any difference in my bandwidth use :)
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 ;))
...and here I am, running a blog that if it gets 15k hits a second, it won't even bat an eye, and I could run it on a potato. Probably because I don't serve hundreds of megabytes of garbage to visitors. (The preview image is also controllable iirc, so just, like, set it to something reasonably sized.)
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.
Ah! My bad.
mumbles something about big corps choosing way too generic names for their stuff
Threads does not interact with the Fediverse in its current form. It's a horn blasting into the fediverse at best. It's not participating in the fediverse, it's shouting into it. As such, it's correct to not report on how thredsizens participate in the fediverse - they do not, not at this time.
Or one could buy any of the existing pre-built splits. Which might be more expensive, but it does not involve something one very explicitly said they don't want to do.
I'd rather spend twice as much on a well built keyboard with warranty than trying to solder one together myself and botch it up, and then it suddenly costs more than if I just bought a pre-built one.
I don't use social media to stay connected with family. I lift up the phone, go visit, or if we need to communicate online, I have an XMPP server for the family with end to end encryption. Can share pictures, text, and can even do video calls if need be, send files, and so on.
Don't see the need to involve any kind of social media.
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.
...and you think 14-17 year olds won't circumvent this in mere seconds? Like, they'd just sign up at an instance that doesn't implement these labels, or doesn't care about them, or use their parents accounts, or ask them, or an older friend to sign them up, and so on. Even if age verification would be widespread and legally mandated, I highly doubt any sufficiently determined 14-17 year old would have any trouble getting past it.
Yep. So I don't see why they wouldn't enforce that extra win.
