Over a million actually by now, and they got above 15 mil total.

Same, and honestly, that’s enough for now. It already cuts out a giant portion of the footprint and I got so many other things to worry about, I can work on finding replacement cheese that isn’t a joke later.

That the guy making the table is pulling things out of their arse, basically.

I don’t get it.

How is that a problem to people wanting to work on or work with Bitwarden? Or am I misunderstanding the wording on it?

It just seems to say that you cannot rip this SDK out to use it on something else. Which makes sense as far as an internal library goes, at least on the surface?

I read this and I kept thinking at first “There’s no way I haven’t seen this in IntelliJ bef…”… oh. Of course that’s the one positive example. 😅

Two thumbs up Jetbrains. And yeah, I think all IDEs for all languages should allow this as a modified view type. Maybe even bidirectional for special cases.

I don’t want to follow random people though? Twitter was useful as a way to follow specific companies and people to know when say, a service goes down or an update is released.

These people and companies aren’t on Mastodon.

But the issue is that the temporary surges are not even followed by stability, they’re followed by decline. That’s not a recipe for sustainability.

You mean after a surge there’s less active users than before?

There’s just not many people on there. And I already never used Twitter except to read in-time updates from people and companies, so naturally with many of them being on Threads or Bluesky, that’s where I’d go to get that information.

I mean it’s just normal to have a “social” part to social media, no?

From a privacy perspective it’d be annoying if the default weren’t one-identity-per-website, though. That’s how it ought to work. If the user then wants to instead use a single one (akin to how OAuth logins allow you to use a single identity for auth purposes) that’s on them, but it should not work that way without explicit enabling.

Yeah I was going to say, is there a tool for keeping multiple of these pods around so I can use different identities for (some) different sites?

deleted by creator

Yeah it’s a weird internal problem. It has to exist for understandable reasons, but also naturally makes it so that nobody will want to join any but the very largest instance, automatically centralizing it all again.

In fact, the very reality of there being a three hour video of someone talking (as in, in written text this’d be a maximum of 10 minutes of reading, for a slow reader) about a supposed onboarding problem with the fediverse is irony at its finest.

Yeah… sure… if you always expand 10 minutes of content into 180 minutes using a wrong format, you might fuck up getting anybody to do anything. You seem to not want them to get what you’re trying to teach, maybe.

Ah, sorry if that wasn’t clear, the entire second half was theoretical about a better way of doing this.

A type of federation where there is no “home” for a community any more. It exists equally on all servers, so any being removed would have ~0 effect.

I mentioned that basically because I feel that’s a much better solution to the problem than shared ownership + locked registrations. Sorry if that wasn’t clear, not my primary language.

Now it makes even less sense.

So instead of one admin being able to take it all down we have multiple, and we also don’t allow local users. But we have multiple admins, so these instances would be uniquely able to process very large numbers of users on account of having more than one admin? There’s still the problem of course of how to handle someone being an admin on a technical level, and I don’t see a solution to that. Could go and notarize shared ownership of a bare metal server I suppose?

But still, what’s the point? It doesn’t improve anything, in fact it actively makes it worse. If you want communities to be resistant to server removal, you’d need a way to… federate the community. So that even if the original instance is gone, everyone keeps interacting with their local federated community-copy and these keep federating to each other (copy). As in, there’s no original any more, but good luck keeping all of that consistent. 😅 In particular because that still doesn’t solve the problem because now you got people able to either moderate each others copy (good luck with that power trip bonanza) and no central admin to remove the mods, or they cannot moderate each other, in which case good luck figured out how to block on a per-post basis depending on laws in your particular country getting the content federated over.

From the “privacy nightmare” “article”:

If you have any objection at all to your posts and profile information being potentially sucked up by Meta, Google, or literally any other bad actor you can think of, do not use the fediverse. Period.

It’s on the internet. Public. Got it. It’s almost as if, and hold on to your hats here, the whole point of posting on something like Mastodon or Lemmy or so is to have a public discourse, as you cannot know who will be replying anyways. It’s almost as if, and this is getting wild, I know, read-access being public is intentional and explicitly part of the design.

Sorry, but this always make me rage. It’s like these people are discovering in 2024 that public access means anyone can read it, not just 2000 individual tech bloggers. It’s like in 2024 they’re discovering that, but aren’t technicallly skilled enough to open a forum to have their closed-of discussions in.

Sigh.

No wonder the tech sphere is going to shits if this is the modern discourse around it. :(

Sorry, rant over.

Just checked, they call it football. Like everyone with half a braincell.

Also, if we assume that the entire idea is to have more than one admin, then what change does that actually include?

You now have 3-4 people that can go and randomly delete the whole server instead of 1? Do you know that right now, only 1 person has the credentials to the admin account of whatever server you’re talking about?

The whole point of federation is to let people join communities even when they don’t have an account in the same server.

[citation needed], because it disagrees with the “whole point” I can find

Why?

That just locks communities off. Wh ich you could readily do before Lemmy, just host a forum. Discourse is a pretty damn cool software for it. Close registrations, close visibility, and allow users in on a per-user basis. That’s also a lot how Tildes works, and I remember people here don’t like that very much.