Replying to
@catsalad@infosec.exchange A giant tortilla blanket and tomato pillows would go so hard with this :D
Remote
Abhiram
@axel@social.glitched.systems
sharkey 2025.4.7| Sysadmin | Full Stack Engineer |
I teach people how to code and manage infrastructure! 
I also run glitched.systems 
81 Followers
136 Following
18 Posts
Pronouns:
He/Him
My Website:
My Old Account:
Glitched Systems:
Replying to
@diegoe@mastodon.social This is definitely a trend I've been noticing in a lot of "new" open source spaces. A lot of these projects seem to want the aesthetics of open source but not the philosophy behind it.
Replying to
@froge@social.glitched.systems @osma@mas.to I come bearing receipts: https://nypost.com/2024/05/10/tech/why-jack-dorsey-quit-bluesky-it-was-repeating-all-mistakes-twitter-made/
Over at Bluesky, “little by little, they [the users] started asking Jay [Graber, the CEO] and the team for moderation tools, and to kick people off. And unfortunately they followed through with it,” Dorsey told Pirate Wires.
Replying to
@froge@social.glitched.systems @osma@mas.to No no, he left because they started doing content moderation and people were making fun of his beard. I'm not even joking.
Replying to
@grumpygamer@mastodon.gamedev.place What does "AI as the new social media" even mean?? Where is the social?
A theory on why I'm always right about everything all the time: https://foss.life/shitposts/2026/geometry-of-infallibility/
Replying to
@light@noc.social @froge@social.glitched.systems@social.glitched.systems @paezha@mastodon.online @osma@mas.to That's actually exactly what he wants. He even said as much some time ago.
He thinks that moderation should only be dictated algorithmically and users shouldn't control what they can/can't see. He's one of those "free speech absolutist" types. :ablobrollingeyes:
Replying to
@froge@social.glitched.systems @osma@mas.to clearly that was just a cover up so people wouldn't find out about his hurt beard feelings :blobfoxmlem:
Replying to
@light@noc.social @froge@social.glitched.systems@social.glitched.systems @paezha@mastodon.online @osma@mas.to You can read about his thoughts over here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221214000628/https://www.getrevue.co/profile/jackjack/issues/a-native-internet-protocol-for-social-media-1503112
Surprisingly the original post no longer exists, so I had to go hunting through the wayback machine for it. 😄
This was posted shortly after the whole twitter files thing happened.
Replying to
@light@noc.social @froge@social.glitched.systems@social.glitched.systems @paezha@mastodon.online @osma@mas.to it almost always means being able to say slurs or other unpleasant things on main without being blockable.
Replying to
@alex02@defcon.social @froge@social.glitched.systems@social.glitched.systems @osma@mas.to Yeah, it was kinda sorta doomed right from the get go in that regard.
Replying to
@light@noc.social @paezha@mastodon.online @froge@social.glitched.systems@social.glitched.systems @osma@mas.to He basically wants to reinvent twitter but without content moderation and decentralized.
Welp, sobbing at Chopper's story again. :ablobreachsob:
#onepiece #onepieceliveaction
Fedi, I have a design problem I'd appreciate thoughts on.
I've been building a federated E2EE messenger (based on MLS) where the server learns as close to nothing as possible about you, so there's no accounts or user records. Which raised the obvious question: how do you rate limit anything?
The answer I went with is PrivacyPass. You authenticate once to get a batch of tokens, so the server knows who you are at that moment. Then you spend them anonymously - they're blinded at issuance, so when one comes back the server can verify it's valid but can't tell who it gave it to. Rate limiting happens at issuance, not at send time. You get a budget: 2,000 tokens/hour, 10,000 burst. (the numbers are based on napkin math and can be adjusted)
Now the actual problem: one token buys one envelope, and an envelope goes to one device. Group messages fan out client-side, so a message to a group of D devices costs D tokens. At two devices per person, a 250-person group is 500 tokens per message which is about 4 messages/hour. So groups pretty much have to cap out around 200-250 people.
I can't just make fan-out cheaper, because the server can't see group membership. It genuinely cannot distinguish "500 envelopes because my group is large" from "500 envelopes because I'm spamming 500 strangers." Any discount that makes fan-out affordable makes spam affordable by exactly the same factor.
The only structural escape I've found is to stop fanning out - one envelope that many people fetch. But then the server sees N people reading one mailbox, which hands it the group membership the per-recipient design exists to hide.
So:
- Is there a way to prove "this batch is fan-out to a group I belong to" without revealing the group or its members? Feels anonymous-credential-shaped but I haven't found the primitive.
- Is ~250 people a reasonable ceiling to just accept?
- Anything obvious I'm missing?
Replying to
@GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social I feel like people who've been paying attention already knew this at some level, but it's nice that there's papers coming out slowly that corroborate this.
Replying to
@veil_im@infosec.exchange I think you tagged the wrong axel, but this is really interesting! 
I did consider epoch batching as well, but I wanted to check if there's better ideas there.
Thanks for the ideas! I'm gonna chew on this a little!
I did consider epoch batching as well, but I wanted to check if there's better ideas there.
Thanks for the ideas! I'm gonna chew on this a little! Replying to on mastodon.sprawl.club
@ludicity@mastodon.sprawl.club I've had to do this twice. Usually asking them questions about their personal tech opinions and having them defend those opinions outs them. :blobfoxlul:
Replying to
@the5thColumnist@mstdn.ca @grumpygamer@mastodon.gamedev.place someone just sent me this: https://www.moltbook.com/
The agents are social media-ing now! :blobfoxscared: