That's actually reasonably obscure - might as well link to https://www.urbandictionary.co...

Github actions was pretty severely affected by this.

All of the actions that run on ubuntu or any of the other flavours of linux were unable to start for at least as long as mentioned in the story summary.

I think the outage was actually a bit longer than suggested as it took the CDN networks that microsoft uses internally to pickup the new versions taking a while to pick them up, and then after that there was a backlog of jobs to process on github actions that made the downloading of images be quite slow (installing linux at 40kB/s takes a while) as well as a back log of jobs in the github actions.

I'm slightly dissapointed that the status page for github actions didn't list any info about this. It left users unabe to know if there was anything they could do to make their stuff work again, or if they needed to just wait it out.

> And in a try to get new content and creators letting them do it for free for now...

What type of content creator would want to use Facebook. I mean, what would that say about them as a content creator? And why would pretty much any content creator want to reach the audience the Facebook has?

There would obviously be some, that wanted to reach middle-aged housewives, generally old people, and particularly angry old people, who would use Facebook regardless of an incentive...but any content creator, that wanted to reach other audiences, is unlikely to want to be associated with Facebook...

I believe this should be pronounced "security model for Chrome extensions is not good enough".

Telling users to "be careful" is shifting the blame for when bad stuff happens, from the people making software to the people using software.

They've probably realised how vulnerable they are to it.

Senior management at a company could install employees, who were secretly told to leave backdoors open, then the 'hackers' come along and hack their systems.

Company manager: "Oh no! How could this ever happen! We'll have to pay the ransom to get our system back! And no-one will ever be able to trace that money! You have no idea how terrible this makes me feel! I must resign in shame, to live a life of retirement in exile! Maybe some place with a beach, or the rule of law...."

> I just see MEPR as a tool that would let me get quick assessments for strange new identities.

Oh....that's a difficult problem, and not one I think I'm going to try to solve.

I'm limiting myself to thinking about evaluating people in a known set, e.g. software developers who use a particular language, and have contributed to projects written in that language. Even in that limited setting, evaluating whether "this person has made a large number of useful commits" or "this person just likes to argue, and hasn't provided much work", is a _really_ difficult problem to solve, for groups of more than about 5 people.

> Milan has been at the centre of Italy's coronavirus outbreak,

It's worth noting, that there were direct flights between Wuhan and Milan, before everything got shutdown.

> Coming back to the sock puppet problem, though I'm not sure that's what you are thinking about.

To be clear, that's not what I'm thinking about.

I'm more about semi-closed groups where you have people who want to help, and want to take part in discussions, but at the same time, some people's "contributions" sum up to a negative effect e.g. https://youtu.be/Q52kFL8zVoM?t...

Tying together how people who have actually done useful work view other people's comments, would be the way I'd be trying to make community management easier. I don't think a precise algorithm is needed for that...more a easy to use tool to be able to give feedback to the person.

> If you are going for a Funny mod point,

No. It's something I've been thinking about from a slightly different angle. My main conclusion so far is, "we might be fucked": https://github.com/AlwaysSepte...

> No, but if you have an actual question, then I can probably try to answer it.

For any reputation based system, how do you limit the incentive for gamification? For example, for open source projects, one measurement of 'reputation' would be number of commits. But implementing it like that would obviously lead to many more trivial commits, which would be a burden on the people doing the code review. How can you limit this feedback effect?

> I think that part of the issue is that condensation inside NSC (New Safe Confinement) may compromise the structure over time from corrosion.

Ugh. I wonder even how much info they have on "how to keep a structure standing for 5000 years, when it's not built in the shape of a pyramid.", let alone details about how corrosion affects buildings over that time frame.

Obviously the exact cause and effect needs to be established, so that the situation can be controlled long term, but _right now_ you have:

* a quite concerning development.
* a reasonably simple explanation.
* a reasonable simple fix.

Unless someone can think of a reason why starting spraying water, to start soaking the soil, would be a stupidly dangerous thing to do, ....then maybe watering that ground. It's going to take days to reach down, so waiting until the situation gets much worse....sounds like a bad idea.

> My general "theme" in this area is time management via MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation)

Do you have a newsletter?

So anyone who takes a photo of me, can upload that photo to this service, and then find every other photo of me on the internet?

Well, that's certainly a useful tool for rapists and hit-men I guess.

Dan Olson has a very good video on how gaming the algorithm has led to some bizarre results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And this behaviour is a symptom of systems behaviour: "IF THINGS ARE ACTING VERY STRANGELY, CONSIDER THAT YOU MAY BE IN A FEEDBACK SITUATION." https://twitter.com/SysQuotes/... So studying Systemanticsis is still a valid thing to study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I see in another comment you describe yourself as a high functioning aspergers. I think you are slightly less high functioning than you imagine.

The bit you're missing here is that someone can act very unpleasantly, and make people not want to have anything to do with them, but for their behaviour to not be criminal offence.

Stallman has repeatedly done stuff that makes people not want to have anything to do with him. He's been told specific parts of his behaviour are unpleasant. He, like you, thinks that if he isn't breaking a law, he's allowed to continue that behaviour. He can, but at the same time, that means that some people don't want anything to do with him.

At some point the people running a project need to decide who they want to include and who they want to exclude.

Should they keep a guy who is a creep, and refuses to listen to feedback as to why his behaviour is unpleasant, or do they want to keep everyone else who doesn't want to have anything to do with him?