mosiacmango

Im not an expert either, but both people in the above links are. They are both worth reading if you want to understand the platforms better.

As to blueskys user data portability, it's part of the protocol to a degree, but it's not a reality. The design is such that only megacorps/giant orgs can host the bluesky service. It doesnt really matter if your data is portable if no one will let you import it. Its akin to google reader and rss. People could export their rss feeds when google shut down google reader, but without an rss reader, it didn't matter. That data had no usable context.

These is a drastic asymmetry problem with bluesky. It demands a giant player to gatekeep, whereas the fediverse lets anyone, anywhere add or even begin a network.

The Fediverse doesnt have a parallel of data portability at all, so even that lackluster implementation is something, but to both protocols defense, the Fediverse is talking about changes to activelypub to add this, and bluesky is attempting to make small services more possible.

Still, in all reality, neither of these platforms offers anything like that today, or likely in the near future.

It's not distributed, nor really designed at all like the fediverse. It is deeply centralized, and its architecture requires it to be centralized, or at least to have only huge players with a "gods eye view" for it to work.

Atproto was initially designed as a straight drop in replacement for twitter, so its design makes sense, but its not at all like the Fediverse.

One of the authorities of ActivityPub, the fediverse protocol, just did a very kind but still very blunt breakdown of Bluesky's design choices. she is a big fan of the people involved and some of its positives, but it is not fediverse like, not at all. In her words, it doesn't scale down, only up. You cant have a small bluesky server. To work, you need all data sent to everyone, on every instance. The data demands for just the current influx is TBs/month of data, and climbing (according to the link below, they use 16TB of nvme storage right now after the recent surge, which would be thousands /month on any cloud service. This will climb dramatically).

All data being public is a design choice by Bluesky. It is also a different design choice by the fediverse that comes to the same outcome, but that does have an answer if we want it. I know gotosocial did something interesting to make fully private votes by using a empty shell profile that votes, but tying that in a tricky way to your account. So there are fediverse answers to privacy, but there may not be bluesky answers.

EDIT: One of the blueksy/atproto devs replied to the above link today. The gist reinforces the point that the service is intended to be run by large orgs, including corporations, but also big non profits like the internet archive or Wikipedia. His take is that user experience is key, and for that you need big money and easy features. They are hoping that since the pieces of atproto can be hosted separately by separate giant orgs, that market forces will make it viable to be decentralized.

Most hot sauce is mainly vinegar. It doesnt really have a shelf life, but if so, it's years and years.

Im betting that no, whoever has got the staircase full isn't going to use them all, but they will use some. At that stage, it's a collector enjoying collecting a foodstuff. They will enjoy a bit of them all, then enjoy seeing them and maybe the memories, like most collectors.

Works for me, as long as he keeps them off the communal fucking stairs.

Y'all dont have condiments in your house?

This guy found one he likes and just kept going. The endorphin kick from just bollocking yourself with some demon spice is probably a big part of it.

You can still customize it, but it has hard minimum at what I think is $7. The old humble had no minimum at all. They also deceptively set the "default" cost 1 tier above the actual "get all the items" cost for bundles. A very irritating and obvious dark pattern.

Just IGN brutalizing a beloved name in gaming via enshittification to make its money back.

They sold to IGN a few years ago.

It was also when they introduced a $7 minimum humble tip for the bundles.

I'm discussing this comment :

https://sopuli.xyz/comment/13141026

the one that you initially replied to talking about recent Spanish court case where the defendants used a 7x wipe on some drives that were required to be retained as evidence.

Im well aware sysadmins existed before 2006, and also don't see how that's relevant in context. Security practices change over the course of 18 years in IT, as they have for secure wiping data.

DoD dropped it 7 and 3 pass requirements in 2006.

Later in 2006, the DoD 5220.22-M operating manual removed text mentioning any recommended overwriting method. Instead, it delegated that decision to government oversight agencies (CSAs, or Cognizant Security Agencies), allowing those agencies to determine best practices for data sanitization in most cases.

Meanwhile, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in its Guidelines for Media Sanitization of 2006 (PDF), stated that “for ATA disk drives manufactured after 2001 (over 15 GB) clearing by overwriting the media once is adequate to protect the media.” When NIST revised its guidelines in late 2014, it reaffirmed that stance. NIST 800-88, Rev. 1 (PDF) states, “For storage devices containing magnetic media, a single overwrite pass with a fixed pattern such as binary zeros typically hinders recovery of data even if state of the art laboratory techniques are applied to attempt to retrieve the data.” (It noted, however, that hidden areas of the drive should also be addressed.)

For ATA hard disk drives and SCSI hard disk drives specifically, NIST states, “The Clear pattern should be at least a single write pass with a fixed data value, such as all zeros. Multiple write passes or more complex values may optionally be used.”

My org shreds discs entirely with a mechanical grinder, so I'm well aware of overkill.

Multiple overwrites being unnecessary isnt really an opinion. Here is the company that owns dban agreeing with security orgs like NIST, that anything past 1 write is unnecessary. .

I think the issue comes down to whether the org in question does that 7 passes consistently on all discs, or if it just so happened to start that policy with those that had evidence on them.

Dont forget the time barrier. India is 12hrs apart from PST. You submit an issue and dont hear a response for a whole day. Things that used to take minutes or hours take days or weeks instead, even for simple problems.

It's an option, but not the default. It takes forever to run, so someone using it is being very intentional.

It's also considered wildly overkill, especially with modern drives and their data density. Even a single pass of zeros, the fastest and default dban option, wipe data at a level that you would need a nation state actor to even try to recover data.

Honestly, that was what early reddit was like too. Lots and lots of cat pics.