@ZorbaTHut's banner p

ZorbaTHut


				

				

				
13 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 01 11:36:40 UTC

				

User ID: 9

ZorbaTHut


				
				
				

				
13 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 01 11:36:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 9

repost because server wipe, if that’s cool with everyone

For what it's worth, I consider "the server got wiped so I'm reposting it" to be 100% justified.

. . . even if it makes naraburns's job a little harder from having duplicate copies of quality contributions.

Target was algorithmically detecting pregnancy over a decade ago.

If Facebook doesn't have data regarding these symptoms, it's either because they haven't bothered or because they actively are trying to avoid it.

I'm not convinced the work is worth it, given the development effort of putting this all together, the fact that some information is still missing, and that it'll just fall into the mostly-unknown chasm soon anyway.

If someone else wants to do the development work I'd strongly consider running it, though.

Here's the dump from the Quality Contribution database, for anyone who had one of those.

Also, pewrqqrwe did some work extracting posts from archive.org and ended up with this list. (Edit: revised version with more posts.)

Yeah, there's someone on the dev Discord who did a big dump. I'm currently pinging the mods to make sure there's no strong reason not to post this, and otherwise I'll probably be posting a big chunky JSON archive of everything so people can repost if they want.

(edit: posted)

enter an email address or use a password manager

Nah, this was honestly expected - the login system is based on user ID, and if the user IDs get reset and you get a token for a now-available user ID, that token is still valid once the site reboots. No particularly great mystery.

I've tried that before and what inevitably happens is I just end up ignoring the success notices.

In this case, however, I'm using healthchecks.io to handle this; it'll start pinging me on its own if it doesn't get regular notifications of success. So unless that service goes down, we're good.

To be ever safer, the script that sends the success notification should pull some independent confirmation the backup actually occurred, like the output of ls -l on the directory the database dumps are going to, and should include this in the notification text. Without this, a 'success' email only technically means that a particular point in a script was reached, not that a backup happened.

Ideally, yeah. In this case it's worth noting that it's taking full drive images, so it's, uh, kind of hard to do an ls. I guess I could run it as root and do a whole loopback thing to mount the image but I don't think that's likely to be necessary.

Huh. That actually might've been you, then, yeah.

Yeah, it's a little weird because this implies that @loper happened to be the one who made the admin account, and I'm not convinced they're the one who made the admin account because I think they would have mentioned it.

(loper are you the one who made the admin account when the database melted a bunch of hours? if so, that answers that question, I guess)

(also, if so, I'm so curious what you thought was happening)

You're welcome :)

(still gonna feel bad about it though)

There's a few people on the dev discord talking about it, and it appears to be Actually Kind Of Difficult. Honestly, copy-pasting those posts out would be the easiest solution.

I am desperately in need of sleep and will be tackling the AAQC recovery tomorrow.

Nah, that's exactly the expected consequence of the database vanishing - the site resets to Empty, and the first person who makes an account becomes admin.

Which doesn't mean there wasn't a hacker, just that it isn't evidence of there being a hacker.

Also, it means some poor guy picked exactly the wrong moment to make an account and accidentally discovered that they were now the admin of an empty site.

I can think of a few ways the site could go kind of weird with regards to login tokens during an incident like that. Easiest way to solve it is just to reset the login signature code.

Now everyone gets to log in again also, which inevitably means I'll get like six emails from people who entered a random password and didn't bother to save it and also didn't set their email so they could recover it.

Oy. That doesn't surprise me, honestly, I should probably clear logins just in case weird stuff happened.

Offline again, back in a few :V

Ehm... Should i be logged in as you?

Test

I think my issue is that civility is an axis on its own, and worse, it's a contagious one. If two people are flaming each other then the spectators think "ah, flaming each other is okay", and we get more flaming, and it just kinda continues from there. There isn't really a way to limit it to just extremists; if we allow it for extremists we allow it for everyone.

But on top of that, I don't think it's an inevitable component of being an extremist. I think there's no reason debating extremists need to be any less civil than people who are ideologically aligned, regardless of how different they are.

With these two together, there's serious consequences to allowing it and not so much benefit to allowing it.

If there was an election for motte dictator, you’d get my vote, and I’m not just saying that, dear leader.

It is legitimately appreciated :)

I keep hoping someone else comes along and does what we do, only better, and, man, just nobody does that.

Civility is often helpful, perhaps even necessary, but as a filter on the truth, civility has a cost. Ideally, we should all be capable of hearing the hurtful antagonistic truth, and just keep cooperating, or here, discussing. Of course, in the real world, without the filter, people will fight or walk away. Civility is therefore just a compromise to our weakness and egotism, like you say “our very human tendency to bridle when we perceive we are insulted or demeaned“.

Yup. No argument.

Our club’s informal norms are cordial enough, its members stoic enough, that imo we don’t need a strongly enforced filter.

This is where I disagree.

You're right, in a sense. Our club is cordial enough. It's cordial enough almost by definition; it's cordial enough because the ones who weren't cordial enough already left.

Relaxing the filter pushes that boundary a bit further. It would cause more people to leave.

The club would still be cordial enough, defined in terms of the remaining members of the club, because it cannot be anything else; a group will always consist of the people who are members of the group. But merely consisting of the people who are the members of the group isn't enough. One must weigh the value of the people who are no longer in the group against the cost of keeping those members.

Here's the Foundation, which is, as always, the touchstone to use when discussing rule changes:

The purpose of this community is to be a working discussion ground for people who may hold dramatically different beliefs. It is to be a place for people to examine the beliefs of others as well as their own beliefs; it is to be a place where strange or abnormal opinions and ideas can be generated and discussed fairly, with consideration and insight instead of kneejerk responses.

All of the community's rules must be justified by this foundation.

Rules against anything is a sacrifice. I'm not going to argue otherwise. In an ideal world, we could somehow allow all forms of discussion to occur without driving anyone away. But in practice, that ideal isn't achievable. Any amount of permission we give will drive people away; any amount of restriction we impose will halt conversation. Rules against anything is a sacrifice, but at the same time, a lack of rules against something is also a sacrifice.

I personally think we've achieved a reasonable balance, but I also thought, for some time, that perhaps we'd gone a bit too far in the direction of lack-of-rules. Some of our new mods agree and are willing to put more time into shoving the general conversational climate in the direction that they think is appropriate.

This is a sacrifice. I am genuinely sad for the conversations this kills, that we will never see because the strata of the forum itself no longer supports them.

But I'm happy for the people and opinions we may bring back.


If you want to convince me otherwise, you need to make a good argument that less moderation better suits the needs of the Foundation. I think you'll have a hard time doing this, because you'll need to convince me, and convincing me is hard, ironically because I don't have any firm evidence, I just have gut feeling and instinct. This means you need to either provide a form of evidence that I'm not convinced can exist, or you'll need to overcome that instinct.

But that's your goal, and merely pointing to the conversations lost isn't going to do it.

I'm already aware of those, insofar as someone can be aware of something that never existed.

Hence my wondering why that multiplication of entities was necessary.

So, here, lemme quickly explain.

We've (okay, "I") have a general policy of not demodding mods merely for inaction. I'm happy for them to come back, I'm also happy to have them giving feedback in the Mod chat channel. All of that is useful!

The downside is that this means we have a list of mods and a significant number of those mods don't really do anything. They're still valued people who I'm happy to respect, we just don't get a lot of work done, and the work needs to be done.

Before inviting new mods we were basically down to two mods who were commonly active and another two who were occasionally active, but one of the commonly-active mods was mostly active in doing the quality-contribution reports (which is valuable!) and so practically one mod was doing most of the moderation work. They were doing a good job but I'm always really leery of a bus-number-of-one situation:

  • If they vanish, suddenly we have no working moderators
  • If they start turning toxic, I have a big problem because I don't want to ban them because we would have no working moderators
  • It's really conducive to value drift, which we might not even notice because it's just one person doing that work

In addition, it's a lot of stress on someone's back, which of course increases the chance that they decide they're done and they want to move on. Worse, they know they're a column, so maybe they end up feeling obliged to keep doing this when they don't want to, which pushes us right back into "start turning toxic" and "value drift" territory. It's a bad scene all around.

My main goal here was to take that bus-number-of-one and turn it up to two or three mods, entirely just to solve the problems with having a single mod.

When I've added mods before, my general experience is that for every two mods you invite, one accepts, and for every two mods who accepts, one contributes. If I want one active mod I gotta invite four mods.

So I invited four mods and they all accepted.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm honestly quite happy about this - maybe this means we'll have a healthy mod population until I can finally get some of the next set up updates to the Volunteer system done. But it still wasn't quite intended.

The tl;dr:

  • We have fewer active mods than it looks like
  • Having too few mods has a bunch of unfortunate consequences
  • I went to add more mods and got more new mods than I expected

Live!

I'm not sure it's a huge improvement because now it looks a bit cluttered, but it's better, at least.

Somewhat on-topic: check your PMs. :V

Not as well as I'd want. I need to wire up the quality contributions to Twitter in an attempt to attract more people.

It's not catastrophic or immediately existential, but if it's not solved, that'll probably be what kills this place in the end.

The markdown parser honestly sort of sucks :/ We've had "improve it" on the list for a while, but it's a long list.

This is now also fixed!

(No credit to me, all credit to the same person who fixed the previous bug, who I appreciate greatly.)