Chat logs of #funderscore for Monday, 2024-09-02

04:12 *** Quits: Noisytoot/ef (noisytoot@not.eris.berkeley.edu.pl) (*.net *.split)

04:12 *** Quits: corwin/ef (~someone@ghostwheel.bru.st) (*.net *.split)

04:12 *** Quits: JAA/ef (~JAA@ns531958.ip-192-99-9.net) (*.net *.split)

04:12 *** Quits: f_/ef (s-16abab34@195-15-242-30.dc3-a.pub1.etik-cloud.com) (*.net *.split)

04:12 *** Quits: fol/ef (fire@static.96.98.78.5.clients.your-server.de) (*.net *.split)

04:12 *** Quits: aop2/ef (~haha@195-15-242-30.dc3-a.pub1.etik-cloud.com) (*.net *.split)

04:12 *** Quits: aop/ef (aop@vps-9bde1a96.vps.ovh.net) (*.net *.split)

04:51 *** Joins: JAA/ef (~JAA@ns531958.ip-192-99-9.net)

04:51 *** Joins: Noisytoot/ef (noisytoot@not.eris.berkeley.edu.pl)

04:51 *** Joins: corwin/ef (~someone@ghostwheel.bru.st)

04:51 *** Joins: aop/ef (aop@vps-9bde1a96.vps.ovh.net)

04:51 *** Joins: aop2/ef (~haha@195-15-242-30.dc3-a.pub1.etik-cloud.com)

04:51 *** Joins: fol/ef (fire@static.96.98.78.5.clients.your-server.de)

04:51 *** Joins: f_/ef (s-16abab34@195-15-242-30.dc3-a.pub1.etik-cloud.com)

04:51 *** ef.relay.fun.irc.andrewyu.org sets mode: +oooooo JAA/ef corwin/ef aop/ef aop2/ef fol/ef f_/ef

06:25 <f_/oftc> I love EFnet for its netsplits.

06:25 *** f_/ef sets mode: +o Noisytoot/ef

06:26 <f_/ef> corwin, Noisytoot: I'll add both of you to aop2's autoop list

06:26 <aop2/ef> hang on

06:28 <f_/ef> <*autoop> User corwin added with hostmask(s) *!*@ghostwheel.bru.st

06:28 <f_/ef> <*autoop> User Noisytoot added with hostmask(s) *!noisytoot@not.eris.berkeley.edu.pl

06:29 <f_/ef> I'm sure authenticating users by host and ident is a really good idea

07:09 <aop2/ef> Noisytoot: is that a ZNC

07:10 *** f_ sets mode: +q f_/ef

07:10 *** f_ sets mode: +o Noisytoot/oftc

07:56 *** Joins: weechat/ef (~weechat@144.172.70.127)

07:56 <weechat/ef> Hi

07:57 <f_/ef> hi weechat

07:57 <f_/ef> I wonder if it's Luke

07:57 <f_/ef> luk3yx ^

07:57 <weechat/ef> I am surprised that "weechat" wasn't taken

07:57 <weechat/ef> It is me

07:57 <luk3yx> Well me

07:57 <f_/ef> right

07:58 <f_/ef> Well EFnet has no NickServ so of course :)

07:58 <f_/ef> Well, it has a NickServ

07:58 <f_/ef> > User --  NickServ has username services and host services.int (mask NickServ!services@services.int); their realname is There are no nickname registration services.

07:59 <luk3yx> Oh no services here either, I forgot

08:00 <luk3yx> Oh no, there are services, just not ChanServ

08:03 <f_> Yes there are services

08:03 <f_> The future rx ChanServ won't do much though

08:03 <f_> will only set +Pqw user q:R:user

08:03 <f_> and you're expected to use `/mode +w` for autoop

08:03 <f_> Integrated in the IRCd :D

08:04 <f_> luk3yx: Consider registering your nick here

08:04 <luk3yx> It isn't registered? I thought it was

08:04 <f_> cert hash got changed to sha I believe

08:05 <f_> So you need to ask hax[xor] to fixup your account if you previously registered :D

08:05 <luk3yx> Apparently my account didn't exist, I'm sure I went through some effort to change its certificate

08:05 <luk3yx> Maybe the database was reset or something

08:05 <f_> eh now you're auth'd

08:05 <f_> we have so many ops

08:06 <f_> I hope no one's going to takeover the channel

08:06 <weechat/ef> Now I want to

08:06 <f_/ef> weechat: you can't here :D:D:D

08:06 <weechat/ef> rx-relay relays mode changes right?

08:06 <f_/ef> yes

08:07 <f_/ef> but you don't have op on rx side :D:D:D

08:07 <luk3yx> And /samode exists here

08:07 <f_> no :D:D:D

08:07 *** luk3yx sets mode: +v luk3yx

08:07 *** luk3yx sets mode: -v+v luk3yx weechat/ef

08:07 <weechat/ef> Apparently I can

08:07 *** Parts: weechat/ef (~weechat@144.172.70.127) ("Trouts are all-purpose animals" -- bigfoot)

08:08 <f_/ef> no :D:D:D

08:08 *** Joins: weechat/ef (~weechat@144.172.70.127)

08:08 <f_/ef> no :D:D:D

08:08 <f_/oftc> OFTC only has like 5 members, only 2 are not on Hackint or rx

08:09 <f_/oftc> By having #funderscore initially be on Hackint, then rx, I wanted to encourage decentralisation..

08:09 <f_/oftc> I didn't originally have that channel on those bigger IRC networks for a reason

08:12 <f_/oftc> Why is duckdns broken again

08:14 <f_/ef> JAA: But like, tilde.chat also has regular netsplits.

08:56 *** f_/oftc is now known as funderscore/oftc

10:10 *** Quits: tweezers[feddy] (~tweezers[@103.136.147.106) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)

12:36 <Noisytoot/ef> aop2: This connection is from weechat in tmux

14:03 <corwin/ef> thank you for aop f_

14:07 <corwin/ef> I appreciate being +o more than I expected to once I got the hand of "mostly ops don't matter", IRC.  Aside all technical or more practical considerations (e.g.) convenience in the unlikely event of defending a channel from random SPAM grenades, let's say, I am finding in recent years that ops (and the handling/policies as regards them, other privileges RE chat, etc) can reliably predict -sometimes, to a limited extent- how interesting

14:07 <corwin/ef> a given channel might be, to me.

14:07 <corwin/ef> got the *hang

14:10 <corwin/ef> Perhaps counter-intuitive example, to attempt to illustrate the point: channels with mod policies (especially those related to who get what privs and how they "ought" to be use) are nearly always "interesting" when I think the net result is "bad", for sufficiently cynical takes on "interesting" (and maybe "ought") as to equate bad and interesting and slightly synonymous.

14:11 <corwin/ef> s/and slightly synonymous/asand slightly synonymous/

14:11 <corwin/ef> s/and slightly synonymous/as being slightly synonymous/

14:19 <corwin/ef> Final comment (unpacking "thanks for +o", lol; something you wan to talk about much?)..

14:19 <corwin/ef> Since I'm still leaving too much in very non-technical (certainly non-specific) terms, I'll sum up as directly as I can, hoping this is enough "practical detail" about what in the hell I'm on about so as, maybe, for someone to venture a though of their own (other than "wut" or "derp" or whatever)

14:19 <corwin/ef> According to me chats with more operators in will always be more interesting no-matter what else is true about that channel.  By more interesting we would mean, apart from any sense of "good" or "bad" all this might help us predict, more likely to receive my keystrokes, or at least eyeballs (maybe keystrokes, but in another channel, or PMs, for example about what has happened, and so on).  More interesting.

14:35 <corwin/ef> I guess I should add, to confirm or correct any assumption heading off in other directions:

14:35 <corwin/ef> I think this is less any matter of any real preference or opinion on my behalf than it is an observable fact I have stumbled upon.

14:35 <corwin/ef> f I'm right (just about this being something that, ob sensibly, be demonstrated true in terms of some "proof" or "theorem"), I think that would necessary get reflected by my (and any other similarly thinking person investing some time) being able to find channels where I can get +o

14:35 <corwin/ef> Even though "I do go on" and "am know to go on so", and so forth.

14:35 <corwin/ef> This should be true, not only irrespective of whether I can explain it all to some given person, or if anyone at all agrees with these points I'm making: it seems to me like, if true, this should be true especially when I make the most efforts and also have the most difficulty.

14:35 <corwin/ef> So, that actually gives me a super handy basis for low-risk experimentation and light testing (in search of "controls", seen as boundary conditions that might influence -further- tests, ultimately meaningfully influencing -at least in potential- the degree to which I think all this might be true).

15:10 <f_/ef> corwin: just FYI, aop is owned by fol, aop2 is owned by me :)

15:10 <f_/ef> And fol is I think having issues :(

15:12 <f_/ef> corwin: and yeah I think what would be ideal is to have at least 3 active ops on each side (myself counting)

15:39 <hax[xor]> luk3yx: it got reset once, yes, accidental removal; it's located more safely now

15:40 <hax[xor]> was a bit ago though

15:59 *** funderscore/oftc is now known as f_/oftc

17:49 <Noisytoot/ef> corwin: so ##pissnet and ##chaos are the most interesting channels, since everyone is op

17:50 <Noisytoot/ef> and #opers on pissnet but you'd need to link a server to join there

18:07 <f_> Noisytoot: In a sense, yeah.

18:10 <f_> Why is the Matrix C2S spec complex..and makes no sense

18:12 <hax[xor]> s/C2S //

18:13 <f_> What is just `:f_!Yes@got-you.com NICK not-f_` is `{ "type": "m.room.member", "sender": "@yes:got-you.com", "content": { "displayname": "new nick", "membership": "join" }, "state_key": "@yes:got-you.com", "prev_content": { "displayname": "oldnick", "membership": "join" } }`

18:13 <f_> hax[xor]: I said C2S because I didn't look at S2S

18:13 <hax[xor]> fair

18:13 <f_> But I mean.... why would you use "membership":"join" if you're changing nicks?

18:13 <hax[xor]> my point was just that matrix itself is overly complex

18:14 <f_> That same non-sense probably exists on XMPP too, by the way, I'll have to check

18:14 <f_> but I'm fairly confident XMPP is saner than this

18:16 <f_> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#changenick

18:16 <f_> Even XMPP is saner than this

18:16 <f_> Not as sane as how IRC does it, but *still*.

18:16 <f_> sending presence to change nick makes a bit of sense when you think about it

18:16 <hax[xor]> > extensions

18:17 <hax[xor]> don't you love it when core behavior is just an extension?

18:17 <f_> That is not core behavior

18:17 <f_> PMs are XMPP's core.

18:17 <hax[xor]> well, yes, but naming is pretty important

18:17 <f_> for channels the XMPP folks just used IRC

18:19 <f_> But matrix, really?

18:19 <f_> When I talked about nicks in a matrix-related channel at one point, reaction is "what are nicks?"

18:20 <f_> As it turns out Matrix does not have the concept of "nicknames"

18:20 <f_> Only "display names"

18:20 <f_> which are by definition per-room

18:20 <f_> Anyway

18:20 <f_> Another example.

18:20 <f_> How do you unban a user?

18:20 <hax[xor]> part the ban

18:21 <f_> On IRC

18:21 <f_> well

18:21 <f_> IRC: MODE -b user

18:21 <hax[xor]> ah

18:21 <hax[xor]> I thought you were still talking about matrix :p

18:21 <f_> Matrix: send "membership":"leave","state_key":"user" IIRC

18:21 <f_> https://spec.matrix.org/v1.11/client-server-api/#banning-users-in-a-room

18:21 <f_> Banning users makes sense

18:22 <f_> https://spec.matrix.org/v1.11/client-server-api/#mroommember

18:22 <f_> But this is how you're supposed to interpret membership state changes

18:23 <f_> > from "ban" to "leave": user was unbanned

18:23 <f_> > from "join" to "join": displayname or avatar changed

18:24 <f_> ^ and this is why my libera bridge sends "join" on nick change

18:24 <f_> With IRC all the 'hard' work has been done for the client

18:24 <f_> the client just needs to look at the command and parse it

18:25 <hax[xor]> with IRC the server doesn't have any hard work either

18:25 <f_> yup

18:25 <f_> With Matrix the client needs to actually look at the event after parsing, to figure out what in the world it means

18:26 <f_> if I'm making any sense here

19:44 <corwin/ef> I went for a longish walk.  Catching up.

19:46 <corwin/ef> At least three active makes a great deal of sense to me.  My theories cause me to want to suggest a bolder stance.  I think, the more the ratio tends toward 50-100% of channel members have ops, in channels under 10 (probably any under 50), the more interesting (effective, fun, however we define interesting) the channel will be.

19:47 <corwin/ef> s/ops/flags/ ;; for cases where flags other than +oO are meaningful in the given chat

20:03 <f_> corwin: EFnet is temporary, FYI :P

20:04 <f_> So, let's just say, I care a bit less about who has op there.

20:04 <f_> That's not to say I don't trust you with ops - I very much do.

20:04 <f_> But yes the reason why I wanted more ops is so that if spam comes in and I am not online, that it can be handled

20:05 <f_> That's also why hackint staffers have +o CS flags on Hackint

20:05 <f_> While I'm sometimes very available, other times I'm not

20:06 <f_> to everyone else: if you think you should have ops just ask

21:29 *** Joins: tweezers[feddy] (~tweezers[@103.136.147.106)

21:31 *** Joins: tweezers[feddy]2 (~tweezers[@103.136.147.172)

21:33 *** Joins: tweezers[feddy]3 (~tweezers[@103.108.229.58)

21:39 *** Quits: tweezers[feddy] (~tweezers[@103.136.147.106) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)

21:41 *** Quits: tweezers[feddy]2 (~tweezers[@103.136.147.172) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)