Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D

daniskarma

@ daniskarma @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts
3
Comments
942
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • lads

    Jump

  • I don't think is millions. Take into account that a ddos attacker is not going to execute JavaScript code, at least not any competent one, so they are not going to run the PoW.

    In fact the unsolicited and unwarned PoW does not provide more protection than a captcha again ddos.

    The mitigation comes from the smaller and easier requests response by the server, so the number of requests to saturate the service must increase. How much? Depending how demanding the "real" website would be in comparison. I doubt the answer is millions. And they would achieve the exact same result with a captcha without running literal malware on the clients.

  • lads

    Jump

  • Precisely that's my point. It fits a very small risk profile. People who is going to be ddosed but not by a big agent.

    It's not the most common risk profile. Usually ddos attacks are very heavy or doesn't happen at all. These "half gas" ddos attacks are not really common.

    I think that's why when I read about Anubis is never in a context of ddos protection. It's always on a context of "let's fuck AI", like this precise line of comments.

  • lads

    Jump

  • How do you know those reduced request were AI companies and not any other purpose?

  • lads

    Jump

  • I'm not native English speaker. So I would apologize if there's bad English in my response. And would thank any corrections.

    That being said I do host public services, before and after AI was a thing. And I have asked many of these people who claim "we are under AI bot attacks" how are they able to differentiate when a request is from a AI scrapper or just any other scrapper and there was no satisfying answer.

  • lads

    Jump

  • That's legitimate.

    But it's not "open", nor "free".

    Also it's a little placebo. For instance Lemmy is not an Anubis usecase. As lemmy can be legitimately scrapped by any agent through the federation system. And I don't really know how would even Anubis work with the openess of the Lemmy API.

  • lads

    Jump

  • There a small number of AI companies training full LLM models. And they usually do a few trains per years. What most people see as "AI bots" are not actually that.

    The influence of AI over the net is another topic. But anubis is also not doing anything about that as it just makes so the AI bots waste more energy getting the data or at most that data under "anubis protection" does not enter the training dataset. The AI will still be there.

    Am I in the list of "good bots" ?sometimes I scrap websites for price tracking or change tracking. If I see a website running malware on my end I would most likely just block that site, one legitimate user less.

  • lads

    Jump

  • Some websites being under ddos attack =/= all sites are under constant ddos attack, nor it cannot exist without it.

    First there's a logic fallacy in there. Being used by does not mean it's useful. Many companies use AI for some task, does that make AI useful? Not.

    The logic it's still there all anubis can do against ddos is raising a little the barrier before the site goes down. That's call mitigation not protection. If you are targeted for a ddos that mitigation is not going to do much, and your site is going down regardless.

  • lads

    Jump

  • AI does not triple traffic. It's a completely irrational statement to make.

    There's a very limited number of companies training big LLM models, and these companies do train a model a few times per year. I would bet that the number of requests per year of s resource by an AI scrapper is on the dozens at most.

    Using as much energy as a available per scrapping doesn't even make physical sense. What does that sentence even mean?

  • lads

    Jump

  • I'm not saying it's not open source or free. I say that it does not contribute to make the web free and open. It really only contribute into making everyone waste more energy surfing the web.

    The web is already too heavy we do NOT need PoW added to that.

    I don't think even a raspberry 2 would go down over a web scrap. And Anubis cannot protect from proper ddos so...

  • lads

    Jump

  • That whole thing is under two wrong suppositions.

    It assumes that we sites are under constant ddos and that cannot exist if there is not ddos protection.

    This is false.

    It assumes that anubis is effective against ddos attacks. Which is not. Is a mitigation, but any ddos attack worth is name would not have any issue bringing down a site with anubis. As the sever still have to handle request even if they are smaller requests.

    Anubis only use case is to make AI scrappers to consume more energy while scrapping, while also making many legitimate users also use more energy. It's just being promoted in the anti-AI wave, but I don't really see much usefulness into it.

  • lads

    Jump

  • How does it factor in the "free" and "open"?

    It seems to be more about IP protection that any other thing.

  • Millennial therapy

    Jump

  • That "unlocking your full potential" sounds more like personal coach pseudoscience than actual medical practice, though.

    Be sure to go to actual collegiate professionals with a certified degree in psychology or psychiatry.

  • Should large Fediverse instances and Bluesky encourage, not require, users to opt-in to bridges that connect the Fediverse to Bluesky and other non-fedi social web platforms?

    Jump

  • I don't really like bridges, tends to be very clunky. I recently interacted with a bridged account over mastodon and it was a really pluf experience.

    I don't really like bluesky anyway. I won't invest in a platform that will be bought and enthisitfy by some fascists as twitter was.

  • Big Updates Are Coming to Loops

    Jump

  • I haven't even think about loops since that disaster launch. Not even a single though.

  • Stupid that some apps are making us pay extra for the AI we never asked for

    Jump

  • That's why I think is important to find a way to "community" train models, so there's always a free open source alternative.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Sort of. They were predicted by Einstein theories. But in a way so absurd that it was supposed to be just a faulty part of the theory when you push it to a extreme. Basically the "infinite collapse" that occurs and that should put all mass in a infinitely small space.

    That cannot be true, it collides with quantum theory.

    We have observed the space surrounding black holes, and that is spot on with the theory. But we know nothing about what occurs inside them. We don't know the density of the singularity, it's structure, how that matter behaves at quantum levels. We know nothing about that.

    Once you enter a black hole is not only that you would be torn to pieces and pieces to atoms, we don't even know if atom structure would even exist in there. Maybe even boson-fermion structure doesn't even exist inside a black hole.

  • Good catch!

    Jump

  • Brain to memory encryption is going to be banned in the EU by next year. It will save the children or something.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Different things.

    The singularity of a black hole is located in space.

    The initial singularity of the big bag happened "everywhere" the whole universe was supposed to have infinite density.

    The mass of the black hole is finite. It's very dense but it have a quantifiable amount of mass.

    For the big bang the mass was also infinite as far as we know. Everything was singularity, every "energy" in your body was part of that infinitely large singularity. Not only everything but everywhere. Where you sit there was singularity during the big bang. As far as we know every single point in space was part of the initial singularity. We don't come from a single point that exploded towards empty space. Expansion is more like the surface of a balloon. Maybe it's better to think of it as stretching rather than expanding.

    Beyond that we don't know much about both, there are barriers which prevent direct observation of both.

    The expansion of the universe is a completely different matter, as it's not only expanding, it's expanding faster that out gravitational models predict, like the universe is not only "ignoring" black holes, it's expanding despite all observable matter, and all untraceable matter (dark matter), and it's expanding faster and faster driven by an unknown phenomenon we call "dark energy" for giving it a name, because we have remotely not idea of what's going on.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • They are like stars in the sense of orbital mechanics.

    But a star can be completely understood by the laws of physics we know. While a black hole breaks our understanding and we have no idea what's going on in there.

    It's the fear of the unknown.