I'm assuming only one of them is actually correct?
I'm assuming only one of them is actually correct?
I'm assuming only one of them is actually correct?
yarnd specifically in the past, whereby a user could "delete" their feed/account but tell yarnd that it's moved over here. Redirects would then be put in place for say up to 90 days or something so clients don't have to be updated (or are automatically updated because of the redirect responses).
yarnd specifically in the past, whereby a user could "delete" their feed/account but tell yarnd that it's moved over here. Redirects would then be put in place for say up to 90 days or something so clients don't have to be updated (or are automatically updated because of the redirect responses).
- Figure out the source of the "bad data" in the first place, and fix it.
- Build an interface for
yarnd operators to write "rewrite rules" to handle this (assuming finding/fixing the bad data doesn't work)- Something else?
I _feel_ like this is just a case of "bad data" that _can_ be fixed easily.
- Figure out the source of the "bad data" in the first place, and fix it.
- Build an interface for
yarnd operators to write "rewrite rules" to handle this (assuming finding/fixing the bad data doesn't work)- Something else?
I _feel_ like this is just a case of "bad data" that _can_ be fixed easily.
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z\t
It would be better if this was:
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z\tby: @darch and then the message
I _think_
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z
It would be better if this was:
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z by: @darch and then the message
I _think_ 🤔
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z
It would be better if this was:
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z by: @darch and then the message
I _think_ 🤔
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z\t
It would be better if this was:
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z\tby: @darch and then the message
I _think_ 🤔
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z\t
It would be better if this was:
2022-10-06T10:04:12Z\tby: @darch and then the message
yarnd -- Basically on every failed password auth, you cause a delay. Every time the same IP/User tries to login and fails, you increase this delay. It makes "brute force" attempts at password auth _much much_ harder to do.
yarnd -- Basically on every failed password auth, you cause a delay. Every time the same IP/User tries to login and fails, you increase this delay. It makes "brute force" attempts at password auth _much much_ harder to do.
- [ ] Add microPub API to
yarnd- [x] Add IndieAuth support (provider) to
yarndOnce we have these two pieces in place (we're half-way there already) we can embed a little widget on websites that lets any visitor to your site login to the pod you choose to use, we'd create them an account on the fly, and then they can use the widget to make comments.
Does any of this make sense?
- [ ] Add microPub API to
yarnd- [x] Add IndieAuth support (provider) to
yarndOnce we have these two pieces in place (we're half-way there already) we can embed a little widget on websites that lets any visitor to your site login to the pod you choose to use, we'd create them an account on the fly, and then they can use the widget to make comments.
Does any of this make sense?
AlphaMan - The New Beginning game at DOSGames.com
AlphaMan - The New Beginning game at DOSGames.com
yarnd_) also support Web Mentions too btw... In theory (even now) it _is_ possibly to modify the code to accept inbound Web Mentions -- Though I've never seen it used in practise 😢 Anyway we support a lot of IndieWeb features 👌
yarnd_) also support Web Mentions too btw... In theory (even now) it _is_ possibly to modify the code to accept inbound Web Mentions -- Though I've never seen it used in practise 😢 Anyway we support a lot of IndieWeb features 👌
yarnd and IndieAuth (we already implement a provider), we're 1.3rd the way there 😅
yarnd and IndieAuth (we already implement a provider), we're 1.3rd the way there 😅
The problem is that it's completely unfair as it's unrealized. You actually haven't made any gains at all, so you're taxing something that may have artificially gone up in value, but then just as easily may go back down in value.
The problem is that it's completely unfair as it's unrealized. You actually haven't made any gains at all, so you're taxing something that may have artificially gone up in value, but then just as easily may go back down in value.