Thank you for the links, I had found a few of these but some are new. The basic idea is there, I’ll see if any of these can work for us. I’m growing more convinced though that hosting a whole app for this super simple use case might not be worth it, I think we might pivot to just hosting a really basic static page for it.

This is way too overkill for what we need. I’m sorry, I’ve been intentionally vague about the context for this but I guess it’s too unclear. We’re an activist group planning a protest. We might have to get this set up literally tomorrow and every penny comes out of (mostly my) pocket. We’re also all paranoid about opsec and anonymity, which is why the requirement about avoiding corporate services is there. Perhaps I should have posted this in a privacy focused comm instead, I apologize.

It’s pretty overkill for what we need, and it would still fall under “corporate” for us. At that point I could just go for the static Notion page which I can get live in 5m for free.

We can set up all of those but again, that’s kinda expensive for us rn. What’s the benefit of using a CMS like Joomla versus wishthis, or even a basic Caddy/Nginx webserver with a static page?

I believe you need root to access those, plus a file manager that supports it (I use Mixplorer which does). Otherwise, as someone else suggested, you can access them from a computer over ADB or MTP.

This is such an amazing article, The Verge’s staff is still capable of some excellent journalism.

I had high hopes when I tried it out but frankly it’s been almost unusable for me. Terrible performance, laggy UI, plenty of bugs, long loading times for songs…

I don’t know if something in my mobile environment was messing with it but I use quite a few indie FOSS apps still in beta and none of them worked as badly as Spotube did. I’d love to go back to it if it improves, but for now it’s just not worth the UX pain.

Edit: forgot to mention. The idea of sourcing tracks from YouTube is cool but causes loads od trouble in practice. I’ve found remixed versions streamed as the original, tracks with the intro from the music video, tracks with sound effects from the music video, and tracks that just cannot be streamed cause they aren’t on YouTube. I know there’s a feature to pick which version to stream, but it’s quite a bit of UX friction and it didn’t work often enough to be a showstopper.

I thought I heard they were rolling out some material you theming in beta a while ago. Did they revert it?

Oh sure, didn’t mean to imply that Chinese people weren’t smart enough to think for themselves. I was just making the point that neither western media nor Chinese media is helping at all to create space or goodwill for critical exchange and debate across boundaries and firewalls (which, to be fair, is not surprising).

Glad to see there are actually Chinese netizens on Lemmy, by the way.

This is just straight up true. Besides the belligerence and racism it pushes, it also makes it near impossible to have an actual, reasonable and critical comparative discussion of Chinese and Western societies. It closes any space that might exist for Chinese people to take part in any discussion of international affairs, since the attitude is so strongly against them. This pushes any open minded Chinese netizen back into the arms of their own government’s propaganda, rather than inviting them into an open discussion of the good and bad sides of their and other societies.

Backed by who?

Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), a Silicon Valley venture capital firm with a recent history of questionable investments…

I’m aware they’re not using a generic model, but that’s not much better. Current custom-made models still fuck up significantly more than humans, and in less predictable ways.

Even if their custom model is slightly incorrect 1% of the time, that’s still a major problem in critical systems like those.

Legacy COBOL code is largely used in critical systems like those of banks and airlines. What could go wrong with having that code rewritten by stochastic parrots who get programming answers wrong half of the time?

Oh that’s nothing… In hard techno it’s not uncommon to find tracks with an almost completely flat waveform

Yeah what’s being described there is basically a P2P model. I still think it wouldn’t make a huge difference in the chattiness of the protocol. At best it would redistribute the load for outgoing federation messages, but not for incoming ones. An instance still has to receive each message individually, regardless of where they comes from.

I understand the logic, and you’re right to think about how improve Lemmy’s scalability. But I’m not sure if this is the way to go.

If you build a dedicated federation proxy for an instance, you’ve really just slightly moved the problem. The federation proxy is going to have the same scalability issues, and if anything the total load goes up.

If you build multi-instance hubs, you suddenly introduce a lot of new issues.

• Security: I think Lemmy checks the source of an update to verify that it comes from the legitimate host. You would have to introduce some kind of signatures to verify that the activity originated from the legitimate host.
• Privacy: now your users have to trust the hub owners with their data, not just the instance.
• Motive: who would be running the hubs, and why? They would have to be even bigger that the instances, and there would be much less incentive to do it.

Other people in the thread have already made this point: even with a full mesh network, the number of remote calls made for a single activity is equal to the number of instances subscribing to that activity (plus one if the activity originates from an instance that’s not the host of the activity).

A hub/spoke model doesn’t change this, it just moves the load from the host instance to the hub. The number of connections is still the same: if N instances need to receive the activity, N calls will have to be made. If anything this adds 1 more call from the host instance to the hub.

Even peer-to-peer distribution of activities, mentioned by @hazelnoot@beehaw.org, wouldn’t actually change the amount of calls being made. You still have N servers that have to receive the activity, so you need at least N calls overall. What this would do is redistribute the load better over instances, so the host doesn’t have to make all N calls. It would definitely be an improvement, but it would not be easy to implement successfully, and it would almost surely break ActivityPub compatibility.

The only thing I can think of that would actually reduce the overall network load, though, is batching: sending multiple activities/updates together in a single message. AFAIK this is not supported by ActivityPub, though, so implementing it would mean breaking compatibility, and also implementing an entirely updated version of the protocol (which is a massive undertaking).