← | Results 14251 ... 14500 found in all logged channels for 'f:diana' | →
(trilema) diana_coman: he came into #ossasepia to "learn" but wouldn't give a name other than "zmk" so I gave him a name, what; he apparently ran off when he saw it was for realz, hence negrate.
(trilema) diana_coman: !!v F3C23B33EC844EE780C11718C23A4034A3F86FC8386D7CC8A1952EADE6C965DC
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the log is full of more detailed explanations on this and why it won't work so go read it, I won't spend any more time on it; talk back when you are ready to start doing something.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and because this is a learning place, I'll add this time for free that "just watching something progress" is pretty much the equivalent of "oh, how nice to watch you work guise, don't mind me, I'm waiting here for you to finish so I can then claim I've been along all the while and we are friends nao, right?"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: don't expect people to entertain you on their own time and at their own expense though; watchers have nothing to talk about.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: tanami: that is probably your own bias so not something I have to answer for; re "just watching" - sure, go read the logs.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the thing is that "seeing" as in not doing is not going to get you far around here; there's plenty of spectators and they are worth in the best case ~0
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the company producing eulora is Minigame; the eulorum wiki is community-made
(ossasepia) diana_coman: tanami: mmorpg with actual economy with currency tied to BTC
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well, for "see what's happening" you can simply read the logs e.g. http://btcbase.org/log
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sounds busy; what is it you want to get out of the "talk on irc"?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: a name is not who you are...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ok, so introduce yourself
(ossasepia) diana_coman: tanami: and you didn't ask why? lol
(trilema) diana_coman: lobbes: if it brings it forward, just start with the most basic: grabs the data from db and displays it in the web page; once that is on, use another week to add the segment by day and the search
(ossasepia) diana_coman: hello tanami , what brings you here?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: you all right there? lol
(ossasepia) diana_coman: he might become one *in the future*
(ossasepia) diana_coman: there is no such thing; by the definition of terms, if nobody yet knows him then and THEREFORE he is NOT actually a great pimp
(ossasepia) diana_coman: but he's not, NOW
(ossasepia) diana_coman: possibly the usual "exceptionalism" trips you over as in "oh, he IS actually a great pimp, just it so happens he's new and so nobody yet knows him in the WoT"
(trilema) diana_coman: so yes, certainly better to have it cut out entirely
(trilema) diana_coman: tbh I never used several pages of comments and having them broken at a random place seems like a stupid idea indeed; but then again, I probably messed about with all the knobs around there at one time or another.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: absence of some required bit of data for "pimp that rocks" is automatically supporting "P does not rock" (some parts may directly imply it even, not just supporting)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it's not even that he needs a questionnaire; he just needs to A. clearly define what HE means by "pimp that rocks" B. look for the data that either supports or rejects the hypothesis "P rocks"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: but from all your "counterexamples" , he had no idea how to interpret the data basically
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the trouble with your Z is that he doesn't have a clear understanding of what "a pimp that rocks" means basically; that's his failure and nothing to do with the WoT; I suppose at one extreme you can think of the WoT as a sort of Oracle - if you ask stupid questions, you'll get useless answers
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: ah, so that's your "not fair", the failure-insurance; the world never hands a failure-insurance, there is no such thing
(ossasepia) diana_coman: at one extreme - if P is not in the WoT, that tells you something about them already
(ossasepia) diana_coman: or in other words, the *absence* of information is some information in itself in the WoT context
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the point there is: you have the means to *also* evaluate an outcome (yet another process!)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: "if the sex was satisfactory, you know it was and just *how* satisfactory; if it wasn't, you know it wasn't and why and how come"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what's your trouble there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: makes sense?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the easy analogy is sex - it's universal aka can be done between any 2 people but not in the sense that it's predefined or with the same meaning or whatever other fixed quantity you try to attach to it
(ossasepia) diana_coman: both 1 and 2 are universal in the sense that they *apply* to all possible cases (i.e. they cover them) but not in the sense that they consist of predefined steps/recipe
(trilema) diana_coman: anyway, thank you BingoBoingo for a prompt workaround to it!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: you are still confusing 2 processes there: 1 is "how do I give whatever ratings I give"; 2 is "how do I find out useful information about an unknown party from the wot"
(trilema) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: done and indeed this way it works; I wasn't aware of this bug in mp-wp though
(trilema) diana_coman: it shouldn't *break* it though, ugh
(trilema) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: there is indeed a "break comments into pages" etc; is that what you mean?
(trilema) diana_coman: hm, if you look at recent comments, the link is with page-1 and there it is correct
(trilema) diana_coman: possibly a theme thing though iirc I just used the basic theme, changed only the colour and added the author under title
(trilema) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: the problem is that it fails to add the 1 there i.e. this resolves correctly: younghands.club/2019/07/28/week-2-progress-summary-3/comment-page-1/#comment-4
(trilema) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: the comments links seem broken on younghands.club; is there more weirdness with the mp-wp install? e.g. http://younghands.club/2019/07/28/week-2-progress-summary-3/ links to http://younghands.club/2019/07/28/week-2-progress-summary-3/comment-page-/#comment-4 that 404s
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: note that there is some trouble in that the original thing (which is working on younghands.club too) relies on the structure that apparently is sometimes different on different browsers; so there is the original thing described at http://trilema.com/2015/that-spiffy-selection-thing/ AND the latest find of the idiotic browser behaviour + a solution for it http://trilema.com/2019/proper-html-linking-the-crisis-the-solution-the-resolution-conclusion/
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: as a side for now here , be careful with feel vs think ; here's a bit on that http://ossasepia.com/2017/01/25/feelings-are-helpful-but-not-for-idiots/
(ossasepia) diana_coman: basically the WoT is a block of marble + a chisel; if it's Michelangelo's process with those tools, one can get David; if it's some 5 year old with the same tools, well...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it's not; and the quality of the results will depend more on you (i.e. whose process are we talking about) than on the wot
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I suppose that's part of the thing: you see the process as predefined and external to you, somehow secreted/imposed by the wot
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sure, you will follow a process to find something out with a microscope but it's *your* process
(ossasepia) diana_coman: perhaps a simple analogy: the WoT is a tool like any other, like a microscope if you wish; now what is "the microscope process"??
(ossasepia) diana_coman: there is no wot process; the wot is not a process but a ...graph
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it's not really "the wot process" but the process of finding out something about an unknown party using the WoT
(ossasepia) diana_coman: now, what is this process that we are talking about?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: NOT the meaning of each number ffs
(ossasepia) diana_coman: aha, the *process*
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: tell me from your selection *what* is said to be "universal" ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: yep, I mentioned it before
(ossasepia) diana_coman: (moreover: even if there IS only one thing, you should provide it rather than ask the other person to find it)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: yes; if you select a part of it, the link will change to provide a specific hook to *that* part
(ossasepia) diana_coman: your referencing so far is a *pain*
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: do the right thing when you reference something: select the part you mean and then provide the link
(ossasepia) diana_coman: i.e. *what* is or isn't universal
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lol, don't mix universal, yo!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: not without significant loss of meaning, yes; therefore (basic proof here!) the assumption is wrong aka "universal"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: think also from the other side: if it were universal, it follows that *all* possible interactions between people *have to* fit ...20 numbers?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so... what's bothering you at the fact that it's not universal?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: good for you then; but you keep circling this "universal" thing and I can't (yet) see why/where it's got its hooks in you
(ossasepia) diana_coman: not for any, not universal, quite deliberately *not* that
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it's *because* the numbers mean different things to different people (i.e. depending on *context*) that *a* number can serve as indicator of *one* specific interaction
(ossasepia) diana_coman: i.e. it's "not fair"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: are you fighting there some deep-drilled "fairness" thing ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so one X thinks shrysr is an impulsive dumbass; so ..what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: there is no requirement to "believe" anything, that's the point
(ossasepia) diana_coman: how does that "therefore" follow there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: I hope you're following the discussion in trilema too :D
(ossasepia) diana_coman: basically the WoT won't help dumbasses *at all*
(ossasepia) diana_coman: you see? plenty of information in there but yes, it depends on the skill of the one looking for it
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and depending on whether you are in turn rated by the advertised party, I might negrate *them* too for being most likely scammers
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it matters, you know? if I ask you specific questions and you answer with generic advertisment, the conclusion is I will negrate you for being an ad-machine
(ossasepia) diana_coman: let me fish that for you, it shows an actual attack as opposed to your basic misuse-case
(ossasepia) diana_coman: basically you designed there a popularity contest, not a way to extract information
(ossasepia) diana_coman: he either did not ask enough/correctly-formulated questions or he should have discarded then those ratings as meaningless basically; think of it: you ask 2 strangers "is X good?" wtf will the answer actually tell you?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: in your concrete example, the trouble rests with ....Z, not at all with the WoT nor with the other 2; basically Z made *very poor verging on dumbass* use of the wot if all he asked (of people he did not know at all!) was "is p a good pimp?"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: did you get to read the 2nd trilema article on the wot? re attacks?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: there is no "universal" instrument, think of it, what would that be?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: basically any instrument will "help" only to the extent that you can extract usefulness out of it
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: your "universal" seems to mean "irrespective of persons involved" which ....no, of course not, how could it?
(trilema) diana_coman: aha, such saving
(trilema) diana_coman: o.O that's some... interesting result there asciilifeform
(trilema) diana_coman: shrysr: one way to think of it is "strength of evidence on which I'm basing this evaluation"; as such, it's not some set amount of time or such purely mechanical measure; and moreover there is no direct reciprocity as interactions are never perfectly symmetrical like that.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what you require is information; how does probability come into it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the trouble with the second part seems to be that you still carry some model that doesn't quite fit the task
(ossasepia) diana_coman: which yes, doh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I suspect what you mean re "meaningless" is that "ratings as numbers are meaningless *by themselves*"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and well done on voicing yourself
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: you can paste a link to the logs in #trilema and the bot in there will quote it as in : http://btcbase.org/log/2019-07-28#1925199 -> it's because of ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I'll be around the next hour or so
(ossasepia) diana_coman: you get to practice !!up too
(ossasepia) diana_coman: at any rate, up yourself in #trilema and at the very least thank Mircea for this feedback + answer his questions.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: honestly, it sounds like you have the right direction as it were but you lack the discipline & structure to stick with it and you end up on a random-walk instead of a clear thought process
(trilema) diana_coman: lobbes: fine but what's your actual estimate on this something fresh off of the republican logbot tree?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: a clear structure can help you loads to stay on track, you know? so you don't end up like that, starting with the right idea but then entirely ignoring it because you got sidetracked or whatever
(ossasepia) diana_coman: A's trust in them doesn't feed in as such, no, how could it
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the point there is that you use the WoT to get the information *you* need in order to calculate *your* trust in a person
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: I *had* given you the reference before, so not going through it was pretty ...dumb, you know?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and then read in #trilema Mircea's feedback and answer his questions.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: do get into the habit of checking your moderation queue on your blog, wtf is this
(trilema) diana_coman: that seems to be the hardest part for people to get; in fairness the actual meaning attached to a rating is up to the one giving the rating so ...
(trilema) diana_coman: not a bad thing either
(trilema) diana_coman: I rated him so he can up himself but he's still finding his bearings/being prudent about it
(trilema) diana_coman: it's probably "too much to dive in" for any "journalist", lolz
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I still keep the text files but more as drafts/different sort of backups rather than anything else
(ossasepia) diana_coman: from a purely technical perspective though, once I publish it, from my point of view it lives there and in the backups of the whole blog/site
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the main reason being that deleting stuff you once wrote doesn't actually have much benefit for you (if it even has any) but it has some significant potential downsides (e.g. people linked to it and/or come back looking for that particular part of it and...it's gone, not even marked or anything)
(trilema) diana_coman: lolz, not with ukrainian girls as such; but I knew girls/environments precisely like that
(ossasepia) diana_coman: re picture and updates of a blog post: the natural "update" is either another post linking to the old one or a comment; only where there really is a good reason, I'd go actually changing the post content as such and even then, in most cases it's an addition rather than a change (even if something is obsolete/to be deleted, it can be marked as such rather than removed)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: re log eater, you know, it's not the worse one can be but the...digestion is the more important part there, as it were
(trilema) diana_coman: http://btcbase.org/log/2019-07-28#1925167 - this part has this quality of "very real" for lack of how to better put it.
(trilema) diana_coman: sounds very... real, essentially.
(trilema) diana_coman: mp_en_viaje: that derpy slutyev sounds like a umbla cu pula vapsita, lol
(trilema) diana_coman: at least local log still works and at some point, it'll see the light of public I suppose
(trilema) diana_coman: still sucks, lol
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: I rated you yesterday so now you have access to more of deedbot's functionality, use it wisely; esp note that you can !!up yourself in #trilema but note that speaking there before you really know your way comes with the danger of negrating and being turfed out
(trilema) diana_coman: morning mp_en_viaje
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: email doesn't matter in the slightest and you'll survive without comment too; unlikely to change your key as such.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: good; zmk are you sure you don't already have an actual name?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: with what you did wrong first and why
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: congrats; I hope you took notes, as you'll document this part as your first post on younghands.club
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: follow the steps from www.eulorum.org/Account_Setup ; the http://deedbot.org/help.html may also help
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: what operating system are you on?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: that's not the right thing
(ossasepia) diana_coman: or say it in the window/tab with deedbot
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: either do /msg deedbot !!register ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: you can link your key-page from deedbot, you know? (at that "connect" page on yer blog)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well yes, it's a bot not a boot
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: you can /msg deedbot from anywhere.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: fine, you get a shot at it at least, let's see what you can make out of it; make yourself a RSA key pair and register with deedbot; ping me when you're done with it and I'll make you an account on younghands.club; you'll get some basic homework to get you started and then I'll see how that goes.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: do you write online anywhere?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what do you do other than log reading?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well, if you go with "my name is zmk", I'll give you a name too, at least make it clear
(ossasepia) diana_coman: zmk: yo, did you perish *that* fast?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: who are you, zmk ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: that much is true: it doesn't.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: why are you here zmk ?
(trilema) diana_coman: spyked: is that generated manually with graphviz?
(trilema) diana_coman: hm, you mean even over time i.e. simply total? ( /me has no idea re USA banks, for sure)
(trilema) diana_coman: what are mp_en_viaje-grade qtys?
(trilema) diana_coman: asciilifeform: do they literally stop you/block your account from taking money out daily or something?
(trilema) diana_coman: lol! yes, HATO has a certain sound to it
(trilema) diana_coman: seeing how they are to the east, it's almost an achievement if they end up west-like though
(trilema) diana_coman: or, most likely, not do
(trilema) diana_coman: lolz, what did the ukr do?
(trilema) diana_coman: well, big tits ~= "like in cows" what
(trilema) diana_coman: sure, never done, obv; but no, I haven't seen the shrivel really
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: well, in desperate search of meaning and yes, it tends to hit like a ton of bricks; (matrix is high on visual effects but not all that clear re substance, lol)
(trilema) diana_coman: onth lactation *does* make breasts larger so there's a way to grow them too!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: good for you :)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: looking forward to read your output on that:D
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I think that's an excellent homework for you: how is the WoT different from Linked In?
(ossasepia) diana_coman will not give certificate of correct and proper writing of WoT anyway
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so English rules kind of say WoT but this really doesn't matter, lolz
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it stands for Web of Trust
(ossasepia) diana_coman: that's a bit like saying shrysr's mum loves him and his boss finds him ok so overall he's a good guy to trust with my house keys
(ossasepia) diana_coman: as in : you have a 2 and a 1 and so your total is 3
(ossasepia) diana_coman: realise that you can't meaningfully "add" ratings
(ossasepia) diana_coman: if you explore the WoT you'll find for instance negative ratings too
(ossasepia) diana_coman: no more than you could (or want to) automate human relationships: the WoT is simply the (necessarily incomplete) representation of relationships
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the WoT is *not* automated nor possible to automate, no
(ossasepia) diana_coman: remember, it's weigthed; weights are numbers, sure but their *meaning* is assigned by each user
(ossasepia) diana_coman: in their wot, what
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: questions?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: those who don't have diana_coman in their wot at all, can't really say anything meaningful, it's all a sort of ???? anyway
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the point is: if diana_coman says shrysr actually has a working head on his shoulders, then *this* sentence will get in turn different valuations from different people
(ossasepia) diana_coman: those who have diana_coman in their wot as "that bitch" will say "that shrysr is bad"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: now what I think of them matters for me, sure, but it's not something directly cumulative like that "if 10 people know shrysr then he is shrysr" what nonsense
(ossasepia) diana_coman: i.e. people I know and what I think of them;
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the WoT is to a large extent precisely making visible and accessible this sort of people-network
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and again: do you trust all those? ofc not
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and then think of those you don't directly know but can indirectly get to know via your friends or relatives - those 2nd layer are also "in your WoT" of sorts
(ossasepia) diana_coman: does this mean you now *trust* them all?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: think of it this way: all the people you know in real life are directly in your "meat WoT"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: technically, anyone connected to me (even if indirectly ) is "in my WoT", sure
(ossasepia) diana_coman: i.e. "he's in my WoT" is a shortcut really and I suppose confusing for a newcomer
(ossasepia) diana_coman: for the other, it's always *weighted*
(ossasepia) diana_coman: for one thing, the WoT is personal
(ossasepia) diana_coman: not quite, it's not just a version of "certificates"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: note that it's not that I trust you because you are in my WoT, that's not how it works
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the next in line would be the concepts of authority and sovereignity I suppose
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: did you do already a write-up re what you understand the WoT to be so far?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: basically in that 1 paragraph you have so many things messed up and mixed up that you can't start discussing it from here, there's a lot deeper you need to go to find some solid ground first
(ossasepia) diana_coman: take it easy, there's a lot there to get through
(ossasepia) diana_coman: even assuming they care about the validity period at all when they decide you are not "a nice guy" or whatever "you don't think the right way"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: (they can revoke your certificate too, you realise, right?)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: aha, thought of poking you a bit more; and yes, welcome to TMSR :)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: basically that's the whole racket with certificates in general: you lend them authority over your domain in exchange for the shiny stamp that enables dumbasses that "evaluate" based on "does it have the shiny stamp?" to come and spam you, congrats.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and ofc, if they own you, it follows they own your domain too, doh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: hence your above homework re that sentence: if you *need* to prove you own the domain, first of all you are just submitting to that new master
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I'll read your website because you *are* in *my* WoT and if I think there's something wrong with it, I'll tell *you* because it's your website
(ossasepia) diana_coman: understand that I couldn't care less if your website was certified by Justin Trudeau personally or whoever Big Inca wears a hat and gives certificates nowadays
(ossasepia) diana_coman: right; what's with all that though? i.e.: what's your question?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: well, you get to choose your sufferings :D
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: you'll need to re-state the q re protocols, I don't get what you're asking there
(ossasepia) diana_coman: unsurprisingly, but from what I saw at recent driving schools, it seems to have been "forgotten"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: re cars do realise that it's not just "I know what it does" - it literally makes you a *better driver* if you actually understand how the thing works!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: back to the "protect the client" (note that there is still the assumption that https actually delivers on what is says though this is not true) - 1. what/how are you exactly protecting them? 2. why? 3. why would you even want to be read by someone who expects *you* to "protect" them without even knowing you, just like that because ...what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: myeah, "user manual": push that button and it clucks, then this button and it blinks" "oh, but what happened to my car that now it seems to blink both left and right at the same time???" (not kidding, I had someone ask me *this* for real; because they... had no idea what half the stuff in there did or why)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: myeah, you know why? "to make it easy for dumbasses to drive too"; last time I saw a detailed technical manual for a car (and therefore was able to literally take the car pretty much apart and put it back together again - with others ofc but possible in a day ffs - was back in the '90s)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: heh; now the q is: do you actually know how it works and why ? when you bought it, did you actually get its *technical* manual too?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: do you own a car?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: do you drive?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: that old thing is still true: *everything* has a cost; including "making it easy for dumbasses to" anything
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: yes, to make it easy for dumbasses to use indeed; the trouble is that the moment you make it easy for a lot of dumbasses to use something, that something will inevitably be dumbassed and quite quickly
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and for the other thing, does https actually give you any guarantee of "security" ? (other than a "certificate" ofc, it's not even paper, so presumably you can even get 2 for 1 or some deal)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: for one thing, what exactly do you send to your readers that needs to be encrypted? what, is the content of your blog secret now?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: you are *always* better off in the dark, cold, painful truth than lulled by a "good" lie
(ossasepia) diana_coman: re difference between claiming "a good thing" and actually being able to deliver the substance of that
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so you know, to start with, why does firefox decide for you on *your* computer
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: the main trouble around all those "good things" is that they rarely are exactly what they claim (by now it's almost impossible for them to be, given the huge stack of chairs on which they rely)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the question with defaults should always be: *who's* defaults are they?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: here, have a look at this thread in #trilema as it's pretty much related, see if you can follow it http://btcbase.org/log/2019-07-25#1924635
(ossasepia) diana_coman: shrysr: your documentation efforts are useful as exercises but do note that a *lot* of "web" is ...fluff, to put it mildly
(ossasepia) diana_coman: as homework: what does "I need to demonstrate control over my domain" say about the entities involved?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: anyways: why do you actually need to enable https?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what authority do those "certificate authorities" *actually* have?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: but the blog looks good :)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: heh, certificate authority, lolz
(trilema) diana_coman: ha, the bots don't like euloran graphics!!
(trilema) diana_coman: mp_en_viaje: din categoria daca-i ordin, cu placere, acolo.
← | →
Download hourly DB snapshot | Get Source Code