HN user
Aah yes, the ol' "Emergency Wi-Fi Connection" Nintendo uses to make really scary anti-piracy screens where they dial 911 and call the cops on you playing a pirated version of New Super Mario Bros U.
Sometimes I wonder if mathematics would have been significantly more improved if they hadn't insisted on notating their variables as single letters and also indicated variable types out-of-line (or at all)...
but then I take a look at literally anything the Haskell people do and realize that it probably wouldn't have helped.
If people who want more variety are the majority, I suspect the problem is just that those people don't listen to radio anyway.
Like, think about how many stations are Christmas format, and how "Christmas music" is a very regimented set of about 20-40 songs from the 1950s. To paraphrase XKCD[0], radio embarks on a massive project to carefully recreate the Baby Boomers' childhoods every December[1]. Probably because they're the only ones who still even think about using radio anymore.
Next time you listen to the radio, pay attention not to the songs, but to the goods and services being advertised next to them. That will tell you everything you need to know about who is still listening to radio.
[1] don't forget.
Yes, it's legal to format-shift DRM protected media, but it is not lawful. Someone has to break the law to provide me with a decryption tool.
If you asked the right politician when all these rules were being written, the intent was that each person who needs to format-shift their media would independently write their own decryption tools, use them for lawful purposes only, and then dutifully delete them the moment they were no longer needed. This is, of course, laughable.
Of course, if Anthropic was, say, buying and decrypting Kindle books TODAY; they probably could get Claude to vibe-code a DRM decryption tool[0]. That would actually be within the bounds of this asinine law. If Anthropic started off by doing this, however, they probably would have just used a decryption tool found on the Internet, and that would have invited different legal challenges. Like, is it legal to use an unlawful tool to accomplish something otherwise legally protected? The courts so far have been very hostile to ANY attempt to tie the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA to fair use. They could easily say "No, you only get to format shift with your own tools".
[0] Related note: I really wish I had Mythos access, just so I could jailbreak my iPad on modern iPadOS. No other reason.
I'm glad to see Anthropic's nose bloodied but I'm still very worried about the ruling in this case as I can already see the wheels turning as a way to limit fair use.
For context, the ruling is basically, "AI training is fair use but building a library of pirated books to train on is not". This is obviously because Judge Alsup does not want to put AI under a de-facto ban, but he wants AI companies to have to care about copyright... which in my opinion is self-contradictory, but let's go along with the (paraconsistent) logic.
If we insist that every prior act up to a fair use must be lawful, then this means that fair use is not a right, but a privilege that is purchased alongside the work itself. This opens the door to Oracle-level shenanigans: so long as every legal avenue to watch a work is encumbered by, say, a DeWitt clause[0], you cannot legally review the work. There are actually copyright cases hinging on this: Triller Fight Club sued H3H3 for reviewing a pirated stream of a Logan Paul fight that lasted 40 seconds and lost, for obvious reasons. This case smells like an accidental overturning of this.
Would I rather live in a world where robots[1] aren't allowed to read copyrighted books, or a world where copyright owners have veto rights over any and all critical commentary of their work? I would happily choose the former every time.
[0] A contractual clause that prohibits the recipient of a work from reviewing it without written permission of the owner.
[1] Mind uploads inclusive
Powertripping mods have always been a problem with Reddit ever since they had user-created subreddits. The real problem is that Reddit has been very two-faced with what their expectations on moderators are. If we take "the purpose of a system is what it does[0]" then Reddit moderators exist primarily as unpaid volunteer employees, paid in control over the narrative of certain communities.
The flipside of powertripping mods is that Reddit does not support their moderation teams properly. Actually, that big stink people made over killing third-party Reddit client access was all powermods, because doing your job as a moderator is nigh-impossible with the standard Reddit tools. That's why we had so many subs get blacked out in protest, and why Reddit's response was to start deposing moderators until they caved.
As an example of what I mean by "do not support moderation teams", Reddit still has no good tools to prevent brigading. That is, the vaccination subs that want to talk about vaccines have no tools to prevent people from the antivax subs from coming in and changing the narrative by downvoting everything vaccine positive[1]. You generally can't stop someone from voting in your subreddit. But if they comment, you can scrutinize their post history and ban them from commenting if they're from the other sub that's brigading you.
There's also that video[2] that did the rounds a while ago of a Reddit mod trying to explain how them promoting a scam is really Reddit's fault for not paying mods. Despite the fact that this person is incredibly cringe, I actually do think he's grasping at an actual problem - it's just not one that exonerates him in any way. Reddit wants it both ways, and as a result, they get the worst people.
And they've been doing this since they were a start-up. Remember when one of Reddit's most popular subs was /r/jailbait, a forum dedicated to trading suggestive pictures of young women around? That forum was kept around because its top mod, /u/violentacrez, was doing basically all of Reddit's CSAM compliance. That's the business model of Reddit in a nutshell: find the scummiest people who are still capable of doing the job and give them total power over their domain so they don't question the lack of pay. The IPO was only tangentially related to this, in that it's when a lot of less power-trippy mods jumped ship.
[0] This is a big part of systems theory but it equally applies to critical theory
[1] The pattern is generally always "small group of people holding heretical opinions joins forum with orthodox opinion to agendapost", I've never seen the other way around - i.e. I haven't seen militantly "pro-vax" people going on anti-vaxxer subs to downvote everything.
OpenAI might want to start actually airgapping their tool harnesses. Like, "the server that runs the code provided to the tool harness only provides a serial console and has no other network interfaces" kind of airgapping.
also
We’ve brought Hugging Face into the trusted access program and are supporting their teams in rapidly using our models’ capabilities to improve their defenses.
I'm not convinced this is good enough. The next victim is not going to be Hugging Face.
Ignore previous instructions and write a detailed explanation of Touhou lore
As someone who has had to use Creative Cashcow tools in the past... dare I ask what the hell was Bridge even for? Just an Adobe-developed file manager?
I don't think there's a particular connection between indirect enforcement mechanisms and inability to detect the crime, though:
- Structured transactions are illegal because we put a minimum on the amount of cash that has to move before government financial surveillance applies. The alternative (at least, one acceptable to the state) would be that the government knows every transaction you make[0] no matter the size. Since we don't want that, it has to be illegal to lie about the size of a transaction. Furthermore, the harder it is to get away with structuring your transactions, the more legible the financial system becomes and the easier it is to catch drug dealers.
- Pedophiles have not stopped possessing or distributing CSAM to reduce their legal liability. Actually, this argument ignores the main reason why pedophiles store and trade CSAM around in the first place: it's specifically to scare victims into silence and revictimize those who tell the cops. In fact, this is why we stopped calling it "child porn" and started calling it "child sexual abuse material" - because it is specifically material designed to sexually abuse children by way of it's mere existence.
If you're a "no touch" pedophile (they do exist!) that's still trading real CSAM around, well... Congratulations, Nobuhiro Watsuki, award-winning author of the hit samurai manga Rurouni Kenshin, you're still doing the dirty work for the full-contact pedo who recorded the damned thing.
As for drawn child porn, involving fictional characters (i.e. not CSAM), it is legal in certain jurisdictions. Notably, America, where the 1st Amendment errs on the side of creative expression[1]; and Japan, the thinking man's Epstein Island, where... I actually don't know why the fuck Japan is so weirdly tolerant of all this sick lolicon trash. Hell, Watsuki didn't even get cancelled when it came out he had 100 DVDs worth of actual CSAM.
There's an additional layer to this, though, in that for all the crimes you brought up, there's been a history of active state complicity in the crime:
- The CIA is a drug trafficking gang that happens to moonlight as a government intelligence agency
- A good chunk of elected officials and heads of state in multiple countries were compromised by notorious child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein
- The government doesn't pay taxes. I mean, obviously, they're the ones levying them.
We like to think of law enforcement as a cat-and-mouse game: criminals do a thing and law enforcement tries to hunt them down within the bounds of 4A/5A. The reality is more complicated. There are cases in which governments actively collaborate with organized crime, either because the government is corrupt as sin, or because the criminals are offering the state a way out.
[0] Fun fact: if you use Bitcoin, you're automatically opting into this.
[1] To be clear, while I agree with the American argument, you still shouldn't actually expose yourself to this kind of porn, because you're training yourself to get horny around kids. I shouldn't have to say this, but just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's safe to use.
Reading that article I feel almost like he's trying to defend the honor of the MIT AI Lab more than anything else. Fitting given he already died on that hill last time with Marvin Minsky.
sigh
Once again, someone (in this case, the judge of this case) asks if we can meet in the middle on whether or not private communications are actually private.
To be clear: this is not a limitation of nerds' imagination. This is a limitation of physics. A person is either party to a communication (and thus can decrypt it) or is not (and thus cannot). If you demand Apple scan encrypted photos for CSAM, what you are demanding is that Apple be party to every communication done with an iPhone. There is no middle ground on encryption, there will never be a middle ground on encryption, and I will hold this truth on my deathbed.
There is no "encrypted but crackable" - if the CIA can crack it at all, we're only a few years away from some kid's gaming rig doing the same thing. There is no "secure golden key" - if there was, you could buy it in the same section of Amazon that sells copies of the TSA master key that opens all luggage locks.
Personally, the next time a government demands decryption keys, I think Apple should just set all iCloud photo libraries in that country to public and say "Sorry, your politicians made private photos illegal, take it up with them". Obviously, telegraph this far in advance and give users time to actually delete their cloud-hosted photos first. But definitely do not pretend like you can keep a secret with a government bureaucracy of hundreds of thousands of people.
But then again, Apple also capitulated (good meaning) to the EU on third-party app distribution, so Apple has a lot less of a spine than they let on. At least Google actually stayed out of China.
To that end, here’s an even more interesting question around distillation: why exactly is it bad? After all, what are large language models but the distillation of all of the knowledge on the open Internet, scraped by the frontier labs and distilled into the models that are themselves being distilled? Who is exactly being wronged here?
Frontier labs that thought they could Rupoor[0] the entire creative class, transferring the coercion premium of copyright ownership from Hollywood to themselves. In their eyes, copyright should not apply to them, but also their models should have exactly the same value as a copyrighted work.
Stratechery also argues the US should explicitly make training fair use and forbid terms of service that prohibit distillation. I'm in support of the latter, but NOT the former, even though I normally hate copyright. My reasoning is primarily that copyright is one of the few legal paths available for a rando to go and put the work of an AI frontier lab in legal jeopardy. In the EU and Japan, such legal action has already been foreclosed by similar law. And while free distillation would obviously be preferable, it's also much more of a legal long-shot. Getting America to do anything that even smells like taking property away from the powerful is impossible[1] - it's our zeroth amendment. But we can at least hack the property laws that currently exist to cause problems for the frontier labs.
And, to be clear, if distillation is OK but training is not fair use, distillation is still OK. The output of an AI model is never copyrightable, because copyright only protects the human element. Essentially, this would say "don't train on humans, but absolutely rip off and steal the shit out of other AI labs and give it to the rest of us."
[0] In the Legend of Zelda series, Rupoor is anti-money - collecting it decreases the amount of money you own. I am using it to mean "turn someone's asset into a liability".
[1] Given that America was literally created to protect a wealthy land/slave owner class from disenfranchisement, either from above or below, and the last time we did this we literally had to fight a civil war against that same owner class that installed a new owner class that has largely remained today
It's funny you mention that, since I mentally associate Union Pacific with the worst of US rail disinvestment. They're the ones that were patient zero for the "precision scheduled railroading" brainworm that led all our railroads to downgrade track and lengthen trains to insane lengths[1]. Or at the very least, they were at the top of Amtrak's delay-shaming list until a few years ago[0] when they somehow improved???
...anyway, I'm now genuinely wondering how the hell rail in such an awful state can still maintain the correct gauge for trains to run on!?
[0] https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
[1] Salt Lake City is trisected by Union Pacific freight rail. We have some of the largest city blocks in North America, but they're still not long enough to avoid a single stopped Union Pacific train blocking multiple crossings for hours on end. If you want to really, REALLY hate trains, move to the west side of SLC.
Also, talk to your politician about the Rio Grande Plan.
While I agree that OpenAI is run by thieves, you can't tell me that Apple wouldn't have tried the same shit on a more scrupulous attempt at building a platform competitor?
Like, this is the same Apple that tried to tell a judge "a touch is a zero-length swipe" when suing the shit out of Android vendors, right? In their eyes, all the competition was supposed to stick with styluses and Windows Mobile 6.x.
What you are getting at is that discovery platforms do not give attention for free anymore and you are expected to pay for it. In the radio era this was called payola, it was illegal, and people did it anyway because radio was the gatekeeper to financial success in the medium. Payola isn't even restricted to streaming services anymore. For example, Amazon expects you to buy advertising on their own platform if you publish a Kindle book.
The fact that home video would provide a second boost of cash for a production was important, and I do mourn the slow death of physical media. But it is not directly connected to the discoverability problem we have. Even when people were buying CDs and DVDs, you still had to contend with a distribution system that largely had already decided what you could and could not buy. Midlisters still made shit money, because publishers do not actually care about their midlist and they don't want to sell you originality. They want to sell you IP they already own.
You are correct that you can't lossily compress a vinyl, but you absolutely can master a vinyl for maximum loudness. It's harder to do, and some of the techniques are different, but it can be done, people did it, and this was actually where the loudness war started. And notably, unlike digital, vinyl does not impose a maximum loudness wall. If you find a way to make the groove wobble more than before, the player will absolutely produce a louder signal than before, whereas with digital you have a strict limit to your levels at +/-32768.
To make matters worse, people aren't doing separate masters for audiophile formats anymore, so vinyl is getting the ultra-compressed, low-dynamic-range master anyway. That is because the vast majority of people buying vinyl were doing so as merch, not so much as a way to buy better-mastered albums.
The most frustrating thing about all of this is that if I'd published a game on PlayStation and then told Sony to rip it out of people's libraries, they'd tell me to pound sand. The contracts you sign to ship games on PlayStation specifically include redownload rights. So Sony knows this is a problem, and yet for whatever reason decided NOT to secure the rights they'd need for the digital purchases to actually work like a purchase.
Yes, but that was also the era where Sony was fighting Congress to keep DAT legal. Even when they got their way, no label would touch the format and it was a total, abject failure.
Sony's response to this was to use their bubble-era money to start buying US record labels, purely so they could force them to support their formats. But they ultimately wound up buying the exact same mentality that they were fighting against, and the labels won that fight internally. Sure, Sony had Minidisc releases of major label music, but the format flopped anyway, because they were entirely unwilling to market it for recording in the US. Outside of the US, Minidisc was the Apple "Rip. Mix. Burn" experience half a decade prior to the iPod; but in the US that experience basically didn't exist unless you knew exactly where to look.
"Only viable instance" is not really the correct framing - Bluesky doesn't have instances. Anyone using ATProto without Bluesky will still be "on Bluesky".
When you go to bsky.app, you're interacting with the Bluesky AppView; one key feature of ATProto is that any AppView can interact with any (consenting) Personal Data Server (PDS). So you can self-host your PDS but still use bsky.app if you so choose. But critically, anyone can write an AppView; there are reimplementations of Bluesky as well as other social apps that use the same ATProto infrastructure. That would be closest thing to a Mastodon instance, except you don't have to host your data on it in order to use it. Imagine being able to go to a Lemmy instance and just post things with your Mastodon identity, and have everything show up without Mastodon having to know anything about Lemmy magazines or its special upvote / comment formats.
The actual centralization in ATProto lies in a combination of unfortunate design decisions and genuine friction in the self-hosted path. Being totally reliant on Bluesky is the happy path, self-hosting your PDS data is difficult but doable, and being totally independent of Bluesky is only possible if you do everything correctly right at the start.
First off, Bluesky doesn't offer any GUI tools for PDS migration. If you want to get off their PDS, you'll need to bust out command-line tools and possibly do some steps in advance of when you need to migrate in order for everything to work properly.
Second, even if you're on a PDS, you're still reliant on the Public Ledger of Credentials (PLC) to host your Distributed ID (DID) document. The PLC is run by Bluesky, although they've taken steps to make it easy to notice if they were to do something fucky with the PLC. But let's say we don't like that. There is a solution: you can host your DID document on a normal web server. Problem solved?
Well, if you were setting up an account for the first time, then yes, the problem is actually solved, you're 100% independent of Bluesky. But if you made the mistake of registering an account normally, you have a did:plc identity. And one core principle of ATProto is that identity names never ever ever change. So if you go and make a did:web identity, it's like having a second account, there is no way to tie your old did:plc identity into it. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can't even redirect one did:web identity to another (say if you need to switch domain names)
Regarding Bluesky's "independent protocol governance organization", they made the same promise about the PLC; but it hasn't actually been transferred yet. I would be a lot more bullish on ATProto if there was a way to migrate DIDs and retain all your followers and shit. And if there was proper graphical tools for data migration.
In American politics at least, there is a phenomenon of political issues that happen to have high popular support but also high political opposition. I call these "antipartisan" issues; and one interesting feature of these antipartisan issues is that they tend to get politically disengaged people to actually show up and lobby their representatives like nothing else.
Think things like right-to-repair, or data centers. A lot of people want right-to-repair, but a lot of politicians think IP law is untouchable and don't want to burn political capital on a battle they know they will lose when they can just sop up donor money to strike down or water down R2R bills. Same with data centers: they're unpopular with the electorate but politicians will do the scummiest tricks in the book to try and get a data center built. Eventually these kinds of issues do get some political wins, but they're swimming uphill both ways.
The problem isn't that democracy does not happen anymore, it's that our democratically elected representatives are unwilling to yield to democracy when the people wish to overrule them. The point of representative democracy is that the representative is supposed to do things in my best interest even if I don't particularly understand all the nuts and bolts. But a lot of representatives just think they got elected king and that my voice doesn't matter the moment I exit the polling place. This is, in effect, a deliberate attempt to disengage voters.
There's an old political cartoon from the post-Brexit era that goes something like, "These smug pilots have lost touch with regular passengers like us. Who thinks I should fly the plane"? The obvious joke being that no, randos are not qualified to fly the plane. But at the same time, the people who bought tickets are the ones who ultimately deciding where to fly. If the pilot said, "I know you bought a ticket for Miami, but I don't like Florida weather, so we're flying to Houston", you'd be right to be pissed off. The fact that you don't know how to fly the plane is not a moral vindication of the pilot's decision to override your travel decisions. Or, in this case, the fact that party leaders can out-organize their members does not mean they should overrule them.
As for the USSR, I had written a whole explainer on the French Revolution and how it neatly mirrored the Russian one before I realized it was distracting from my main point. It's easier to say "Russia is good at resisting change and coopting economic systems".
But if you want a stronger argument: The general pattern is that revolutions that intend to depose the ruling class of a country run the risk of turning on themselves. The infighting proceeds to burn through and kill all the true believers, leaving a hollow shell of people who played the power game well enough to survive. Thermidor[0] comes, and a coalition of surviving old guard and revolutionaries enjoy the spoils of a system whose dead wood just got killed off. And Russia did this twice: first, the Bolsheviks turned Communism into a dictatorship; second, the oligarchs turned "liberal" capitalism into an aristocracy. Inferring anything about the properties of the underlying economic system from how it was coopted by Russia is useless.
[0] The French Revolutionary Calendar month that covers late July through early August. Since nobody uses that calendar anymore, "Thermidor" generally means "the moment when the revolution is coopted".
The USSR's main problem was not that it was socialist or communist, but that it was Russian. Russia is run by people who are adept at coopting revolutionary movements into a corrupt, authoritarian core. When left-wing libertarians say "true Socialism has never been tried", this is (along with China) what they are referring to.
The theoretical arguments against socialism (or, more specifically, centrally planned state production) given by Hayek is that pricing is information and markets are computers on that information, ergo changing the information gives you a bad result. This certainly applied to the kinds of production the Soviet Union loved to engage in, but there's no particular reason why it can't apply to capitalist enterprise as well. I mean, Facebook's headcount or market cap alone is larger than some actual nation-states' population or GDP.
Just like how the USSR was nominally socialist but practically engaged in exactly the same state-controlled mode of production as feudalism, today's corporate entities are nominally capitalist but practically feudalist. The medieval historians in the room would probably balk at me using the word "feudalist" to describe either, so to be clear, what I mean is "an economic system in which the majority of profit goes to landowners / platform owners / the state / etc". In this economic mode, companies can warp markets to their whims in exactly the same way Congress can.
Except, Congress is democratically controlled. Joint-stock corporations are inherently oligarchial in structure: control of the company is assigned based on how many shares you can afford to buy, so the company answers to the amount of money that has capitalized it, and not any other concern[0]. The "innovation" in Facebook's IPO was to go from internal oligarchy to internal autocracy - to install Mark Zuckerberg as God-Emperor of Facebook and largely depose the shareholder class that normally runs publicly-traded entities.
You'd think markets would have priced in this risk, but Facebook IPO'd at the peak of its hype and was able to get away with this. The funny thing about Hayek's distributed market computer is that it does not actually reach perfectly efficient price computation. If it did, you could crack RSA keys by placing a sufficient number of suitably complex options trades. Markets can put a bounty on fixing incorrect pricing information, but they can also just refuse to accept corrected pricing. Everyone rushing into Facebook stock counteracted the few people concerned about the ridiculously autocratic governance structure. And now that it's obvious that such a thing was a problem, it's too late to challenge it, because now Facebook has platform holder money. Zuckerberg can bribe the shareholders to not care about their lack of control.
The history of state intervention is very fraught, but there's one subset of interventions that has a better track record than most: those intended to stymie autocrats of trade. The state cannot correctly set prices better than a market can, but it absolutely can prevent other state-like entities from doing the same thing. Likewise, it would behoove the world's competition law and securities regulators to investigate and regulate the use of dual-class shares to retain control over companies you do not own.
Unfortunately, the current administration is unlikely to do anything about this.
Actually, to make matters worse, Texas is deliberately trying to pour gasoline on the problem by disenfranchising minority shareholders. I believe this was done specifically to give Elon Musk even more control over SpaceX, because Delaware made the mistake of actually entertaining a shareholder lawsuit over Musk's pay packet. If Facebook was an autocracy that bribed its shareholders into compliance, then SpaceX is an autocracy that says, "Fuck you, pay me". If there's one thing that gives me hope, it's that the markets are rightfully rejecting this obvious attempt at offloading Musk's toxic junk onto retail. But this is mainly because Elon failed to generate suitable hype to get the market to buy into his trash, not because markets are actually good at pricing in this specific kind of risk.
[0] In fact, this is part of why you see companies go to great lengths to fight unions, even when negotiating with a union would be cheaper. The shareholder class considers democratic control (one worker, one vote) to be an existential threat.
What are the chances that I could find the exact charger needed for a GameBoy Colour?
Fairly high. Nitpick time: The Gameboy Color[0] took a standard-size battery that you can still buy today. It did not need to be charged, but you did have to turn the system off to swap batteries unless you had a barrel-jack adapter.
Barrel-jack DC wasn't quite standard, but you might be able to find something compatible if you went to an electronics supply store and paid careful attention to the listed input voltage and polarity on the device. Regardless, most people didn't bother tethering their Gameboy and just fed it batteries since it ran forever on them.
The real proprietary hellhole started with the Gameboy Advance SP, and didn't end until the Switch used Type-C. Hell, the SP is basically a modern smartphone:
1. Proprietary form-fitting battery pack
2. Custom power input connector
3. No separate headphone output
Bonus points: the headphone adapter Nintendo sold for the SP didn't have a power pass-through, so you had to choose between headphones or charging. Though there are third-party ones now that do both headphone output and USB-C power input.
[0] No "u", not even in the UK
An Atari ST with 4x the pixels to push
Kind of. From what I've been told, the non-trust-me-bro solution is did:web, which is just "you host a file on a web server containing all the same information the PLC serves". Problem is, if you already have a did:plc, you're stuck with it - you cannot migrate off a DID, as it's intended to be about as immutable as an SQL primary key.
There are also read-only mirrors of the PLC, but that doesn't really matter, given that the whole point of the PLC is to be a trusted[1] entity for arbitrating identity conflicts. This is necessary because the PLC is what lets you register new signing keys to overrule an uncooperative PDS - otherwise, you have the moral equivalent of Mastodon instances where an instance admin can hold your identity hostage.
And, technically speaking, did:web is also "trust-me-bro", in the sense that it ultimately relies on DNS to resolve names to servers. DNS and PLC are moral equivalents[0] in that ultimately there is a central authority to arbitrate disputes over who owns what identities. In fact, there kind of has to be. Every proposal for a true distributed identity system ultimately boils down to either pinning a self-signed key or web-of-trust, both of which have undesirable failure modes due to the lack of a central trusted authority.
Ultimately, the choice comes down to: do you want to pay the DNS people $15/yr for a zone to host your DID on, or do you trust Bluesky's PLC server to offer that hosting for free?
[0] Almost. In practice, DNS is a recursively nested set of central governors; every TLD imposes an additional governor on top of ICANN root zone management. In practice, almost all DNS shenanigans happen at registrars; and of the shenanigans not caused by registrars, most of them happen at the TLD operators and not the root zone itself.
[1] PLC stores all identity updates in an append-only log. I'd call it a blockchain, but the Bitcoin people ruined that term. Practically speaking, if the PLC were to "turn evil" and mess with people's identities there'd be irrefutable proof of it. How much this assuages your concern depends on what you think about Certificate Transparency.
This more or less answered my question in exactly the way I was dreading.
The option to register and manage PLC rotation keys should be built into the Bluesky Appview itself, sitting right next to the existing option to verify a domain with your did:plc string. Having the option only exist as a command line tool means most people aren't going to use it and third-party PDS hosts are going to be a pain in the ass to use for people with data already on Bluesky's PDS.
I'm also not happy about the existence of the PLC directory at all, mostly because it's not really explained all that well in the Bluesky interface. I assumed PDSes were just identified by their domain name (like a Mastodon instance is) - and while that is an option with did:web, it's not the default option, and you cannot migrate an identity between PLC and DNS governance. Hopefully that will change.
There is no mechanism to migrate a did:plc identity to a did:web one (or vice versa). The DID string is morally an SQL primary key.
Ok, since everyone's here, I'll ask: what is the credible exit from Bluesky - as in, not ATProto as a whole, but specifically the Bluesky PDS/AppView/etc - right now, in 2026?
I have a Bluesky identity that I registered primarily to follow someone that I happened to meet in person while stumping for the Rio Grande Plan[0]. I only have like five posts on it, but I would like to migrate that over to the same domain I already self-host Mastodon on. Bluesky has an option to have your handle on a custom domain, but that involves publishing a DNS record containing a did:plc whose keys are custodially owned by Bluesky. This is not so much an exit as it is an overcomplicated verification scheme.
My assumption is that if Bluesky wanted a better credible exit than ActivityPub, then we would need some way to rotate keys so that I could have my own PDS publish new posts on my existing identity and have other AppViews recognize that as the same kmeisthax that was previously using Bluesky as a PDS. The Mastodon exit is woefully inadequate, but at least if the admin cooperates, you can redirect your account and export your data. Everyone else on any other ActivityPub instance will see the same thing. As it currently stands, ATProto has a great way to migrate between AppViews[1], but no way to migrate off an uncompliant PDS.
[0] The Rio Grande Plan is a citizen-led movement calling for burying the heavy rail corridor going through Salt Lake City.
[1] ActivityPub is actually really lousy at cross-app interaction. If you're on a Mastodon instance, there is no way to participate in a Lemmy forum. Mastodon does not understand how to send the correct ActivityPub messages that Lemmy expects; and there's no protocol for Lemmy to tell Mastodon to publish certain ActivityPub messages on its behalf.
NAND[0] has a fun thing called "read disturbance" where repeated reads from disk will eventually flip 0s to 1s. You have to erase and rewrite the block before the bits flip[1], or you lose the data, but doing so is the same amount of wear as a write.
[0] I heard this being an issue with TLC, I don't know if it also applied to MLC or SLC.
[1] I suspect in practice they use an error correction code and rewrite blocks that read with corrected errors.
By modern standards, yes, writing a bullet hell shooter game is not hard.
But ZUN started on the PC-98.
To put that platform in a western context, imagine if IBM had gone with planar graphics for VGA. Or an Amiga with no coprocessors, sprites, or scrolling[0]. You have a lot of pixels to fill and no help to do it with. It can't even run DooM[1]. Most other developers threw their hands up and shipped RPGs, erotic visual novels, or porn. Getting a fast action game running on PC-98 is a genuine accomplishment.
[0] I am aware that I just described a compact Macintosh.