More abuse of this post for testing PieFed user mentions (sorry if you seeing this). Other direction this time.

@andrew_s@piefed.social

Back again, as reply to post: @andrew@pythag.net, @sfc@pythag.net

EDIT: autocomplete was originally messed up, but this shows Mentions as raw and filled in by Lemmy’s UI (both are clickable on PieFed, and this edit shouldn’t notify anyone again)

okay

Remote comment that doesn’t get a Mention until the edit (although it’ll have to be to andrew, 'cos I replied with the wrong account).

Edit: @andrew@pythag.net

Cool. Paging you (although you should only get one notification): @andrew@pythag.net
Also: paging @sfc@pythag.net

Neat. Just have to do it the other way now.

@sfc@pythag.net

I’m guessing that this post is supposed to be a link to a video like this one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0SmgoSMg4

I screenshotted this from their ‘trending’ page, which suggests that their content is garbage and their tech is fucked.

Hmmm. Speaking of Fediverse interoperability, platforms other than yours (Pandacap) typically arrange things so that https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ was the domain, and something like https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/users/lizard-socks was the user, but Pandacap wants to use https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ for both. Combined with the fact that it doesn’t seem to support /.well-known/nodeinfo means that no other platform knows what software it’s running.

When your actor sends something out, it uses the id https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/, but when something tries to look that up, it returns a “Person” with a subtly different id of https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ (no trailing slash). So there’s the potential to create the following:

1. https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ sends something out.
2. Instance hasn’t heard of that, so looks it up, and creates a new user in its database, with the returned ID (https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/)
3. https://pandacap.azurewebsites.net/ sends else something out. Instance looks in it’s DB, finds nothing, so looks it up and tries to create it again. The best case is that it meets a DB uniqueness constraint, because the ID it gets back from that lookup does actually exist (so it can use that, but it was a long way around to find it). The worst case - when there’s no DB uniqueness constraint -is that a ‘new’ user is created every time.
4. Repeat step 3 for every new thing you send.

If every new platform treats the Fediverse as a wheel that needs to be re-invented, then the whole project is doomed.

It’s the crawler at lemmyverse that’s down - https://data.lemmyverse.net/ shows that it hasn’t updated in 11 days

Already posted 4 days ago btw: https://lemmy.world/post/16488547

Tragically, this also means that, even after 31 years, I’ve still never ‘get good’ enough.

Speaking of wildly inaccurate:

Not sure Lemmy gets to throw stones (it’d probably miss).

Sorry. Maybe I used the wrong term. I meant to say it’s not part of the CommonMark spec (as supported by Lemmy) - like spoilers, there’s identifiers that have gained popularity, but they’re still not properly official. I did do a quick web-search before I made that comment, which suggested there are some sites that use a single tilde for strikethrough.

I didn’t intend any criticism of your post - I was just cheekily using it to have a tangential ding at notions of Fediverse interoperability.

With apologies for being off-topic …

Lemmy: we’re a Fediverse app, so can communicate with lots of other ones!
Also Lemmy: here’s some non-standardised Markdown, with no indication that it is Markdown, or which variant of strikethrough we support, and a ‘mediaType’ of ‘text/html’

Oh. Then I’m genuinely sorry. I thought we were both having fun, engaging in a good old-fashioned flame war. Add that to ‘incorrect assumptions’ pile then, I guess.

It was never a threat to remove your posts. The ‘threat’, to the extent there ever was one, was to not bother seeking clarification in the event of any ambiguity, and only then if they were reported. As for accusations, I didn’t realise it was plural now. I think I said that I interpreted your vote as disapproval of my approach, which still doesn’t seem like an unreasonable interpretation.

I’ve never moderated anything before, certainly not on Reddit. You were saying that I reminded you of someone who complained to Crayola. Now I apparently remind you of someone on Reddit. There’s nothing I can do about tenuous connections your brain is making, and this can never be a proper disagreement if you’re repeatedly wondering off into fantasy.

I was never offended, which I thought you were clear on before, but apparently not. It would seem like this urge you had to teach others, that you couldn’t resist, was so powerful that you willing to overlook any possibility that it wasn’t required.

As for the offer of changing moderation style: yes, I’m willing to change. I’m still feeling my way around it. If enough people communicate, through votes or comments, that my approach is wrong, I’ll re-assess. Obviously though, someone as perceptive as you will have realised that my earlier offer was just for your stuff.

I try to give anyone who reports something the time of day. Apologies if you don’t think I handled that report correctly.

Perhaps I should have just PM’d the comment author, so that you wouldn’t have felt the need to get involved.

Cheers. I was familiar with the term from astronomy, but unsure why the author thought that term sounded ‘bad’. I was trying to engage in active moderation, seeking clarity rather than just nuking anything because it was reported. I’m assuming from your vote that you’d rather I don’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt, so I can do that if you prefer.