Most people don’t want to pay for AI. So they are building stuff that costs a lot for a market that is not willing to pay for it. It is mostly a gimmick for most people.

Then post some please.

In my opinion NAT is a hack that makes lot of things harder than they should be. STUN and TURN are services that are created because there is no easy way to connect two hosts between different NATs. UPnP for port forwarding is another. CG-NAT is even worse. I have heard of so many people having problems with it.

Breadcast is messy. It is like screaming into a room and waiting for an answer. Multicast lets the computer decide if it wants and needs to listen to a specific group message.

IPv4 didn’t have cidr from the beginning. They only had classes. IPv6 was designed with complex routing and sub routing in mind.

They never wanted to worry about address space size again. And this makes subnetting much easier. I have a /56 allocation so I could do 256 /64 subnets. I hope that at some point home routers will have the option for seperate subnets built in. This way you could easily have guest, IoT, work or whatever networks without NAT.

One thing you have to consider though is that the minimum network size that allows autoconf is /64 and that because of the privacy extension a device usually has 3-4 IPv6 adresses.

IPv6 changed some things. First and foremost it has a huge address space:

• IPv4: 4294967296 (2^32)
• IPv6: 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 (2^128)

Then they simplyfied some things:

• Removed Broadcast in favor of Multicast and Anycast
• Added autoconfiguration without a DHCP server
• Better subnetting support

And much more

IPv6 traffic is globally steady at around 37%. So it isn’t a majority by far.

The perpetual chicken egg problem of IPv6: many users don’t have IPv6 because it’s not worth it because everything is reachable via IPv4 anyways because IPv6 only service don’t make sense because they will only reach a subset of users because many users don’t have IPv6…

Depending on your jurisdiction it is probably your responsibility to enforce your copyright. I can always just record your music off a streaming platform. You can attach a license to your song in funkwhale (see this). If you want DRM for your music then funkwhale is probably also not for your. You still have to enforce your self that nobody monetizes your works if you don’t allow it. You can delete things from the fediverse if you know the source but I don’t think funkwhale allows DRM protected music.

If you attach a license to your works that doesn’t allow monetization and they monetize the app you can sue them. I doubt they will though. And they probably wouldn’t be very successful because the app and the server are open source. You could just build the app without monetization. And someone probably would.

The upload and sharing copyrighted music probably falls into the hands of the instance admin. As with PeerTube it is probably not a good idea to have open signups. But everyone has to make sure that doesn’t happen.

The fediverse is an open and very liberal space. If you want full control over your works it is probably not for you. No software with federation probably is. If you want and need to control over your works (which is legitimate) you need something with a tighter grip, maybe host the things yourself on your server with DRM. That doesn’t mean it is bad for everyone.

I am unsure if I understand you correctly. Funkwhale is for you to publish music or other audio you make yourself. Not for your commercial music library. And the software itself is under the GNU AGPLv3. You can host the software yourself on your own server or you join an instance of someone else. Just like lemmy, mastodon or all the other fediverse projects.

What are you saying? This is an open source project that is connected to the fediverse. It aims to be something comparable to soundcloud where people can share their music. What about this is says monetization?

There is a whole field, that looks a bit like religion to me, about how to test right.

I can tell you from experience that testing is a tool that can give confidence. There are a few new tools that can help. Mutation testing is one I know that can find bad tests.

Integration tests can help find the most egregious errors that make your application crash.

Not every getter needs a test but using unit tests while developing a feature can even save time because you don’t have to start the app and get to the point where the change happens and test by hand.

A review can find some errors but human brains are not compilers it is hard to miss errors and the more you add to a review the easier it can get lost. The reviews can mostly help make sure that the code is more in line with the times style and that more than one person knows about the changes.

You can’t find all mistakes all the time. That’s why it is very important to have a strategy to avert the worse and revert errors. If you develop a web app: backups, rolling deployments, revert procedures. And make sure everyone know how and try it at least once. These procedures can fail. Refine them trough failure.

That is my experience from working in the field for a while. No tests is bad. Too many tests is a hassle. There will always be errors. Be prepared.

An adequate test coverage should help you with these kinds of errors. Your tests should at least somehow fail if you make something incompatible. Also using the tools of your IDE will help you with refactoring.

Godmode: you maintain the fork.

Piwigo has an S3 extension https://piwigo.org/ext/extension_view.php?eid=691

I invented one for you:

Zungenspitzendilemma, das

When you have something stuck at the tip of your tongue, but looking it up feels like cheating.

Let me rephrase that: I never heard one. There is a word for tip of the tongue but not for the concrete situation OP described. I mean the possibility to just look up stuff wherever you are is a very recent development so it makes sense that a word that incorporates this isn’t invented yet.

There isn’t one in German.

Pixelfed and Mastodon have a comparable presentation. Lemmy is a bit different. The focus is different. It might be possible to display content from every fediverse implementation but it might be a less than ideal experience for many of them.

The problem is not the data. Only the central nature and the dependency on a central point.

As pretty as that would be it has its problems. For this to work you need an authentication service. If you use that service for everything then your accounts are linked to this auth provider and you get a problem if that service goes down. You create a single point of failure.

That being said matrix and mastodon support oauth providers. So it is possible to have unified authentication provider for these two. Lemmy doesn’t support this yet.