/tech/ - Technology

>>18861 (OP) 
Hierarchical centralization is just efficient, there is no ways around it. All solutions aiming for decentralization will face capacity overheads. Best you can do is to legally prohibit wide manufacture/distribution of proprietary hardware/software. Make it a requirement to provide full disclosure of schematics, manufacture process details and sources before entering the market, punish using rare and difficult to replicate components and techniques with extra taxes. This will discourage participation from companies and ensure small scale and quality of the network. And drop a nuke on every place in the world that would try it differently.

If you've kept track of web founders in recent times, such as Tim Berners-Lee, you'll probably be familiar with the idea of the "semantic web", the idea of which is to naturally embed machine-readable meaning into webpages.

This would naturally render irrelevant all of search engines, large websites, addresses, hosting, and specific servers, because everything would be dynamically assembled using transclusion from publicly visible sources, rather than today's opaque server-side dynamic crap or yesterday's static HTML.

This was, of course, also the original concept for how the web was supposed to work. Prior to the web, it was also how every idealized hypermedia system (Xanadu, NLS, etc.) was supposed to work.

The status quo that this didn't happen both caused and was further cemented by "web 2.0", large websites built on user contributions, effectively a second system duplicating the web inside itself in crippled form. A digital enclosure of the commons, as argued most militantly in this essay:
Why you should have a website: it's the law!
https://homepages.cwi.nl/~steven/vandf/2008.03-website.html

It has, of course, been commonly argued that, with modern netizens completely unaware of the possibility of semantic authoring, and popular tools (maliciously or otherwise) unsuited to effortlessly integrating semantic meaning into human authored data, the semantic web is today practically impossible for reasons of inertia:
http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html

I think, somewhat ironically, AI might provide a helpful stepping stone. By ruthlessly stripmining the non-semantic web to inject it with a best guess at intended meaning, it may "prime the pump" for semantic browsing tools, perhaps incentivizing the addition of good semantic authoring features to existing tools, which would make semantically rich content the norm, gradually replacing machine-guessed semantic meaning in newer content with human-authored content made the right way, as effortless second nature.

>>18862
Centralization is the entire problem. Open sores "write-only code" is completely unhelpful in this context. What matters is standardized, stable, well documented, public APIs. Completely proprietary commercial software with good APIs is a gazillion times more open than a giant tangle of freetard spaghetti that's impossible to reimplement.

humanity ruined the internet
It's a classic example of how you can't fix a broken foundation through protocol

>>18861 (OP) 
Just replace it with Reticulum.

>>18861 (OP) 
make it work like Tor/i2p/freenet/Gnu Net by default, and make it mandatory for everyone to run a node. This way glowies or the Big Tech won't be able to control everything.

>>18871
Reticulum is pretty much that, except that if every device is a node then you will just waste bandwidth on constant announcements. If you just turned every static wi-fi router in a city into a reticulum node then you'd already have more than enough coverage for mobile devices.

71ee700d596ad6b95beac50b92aa8f78186ca81d9488457d4ada911f116e11b8.png
[Hide] (127.7KB, 559x540)

>>18864
I indeed do not keep track of the lives of fuckjobs.
>how the web was supopsed to work
It wasn't.
Here is the kind of things these fucks invent:
>decoding="async"
>lint
>responsive design
They literally spent 10 years to go, >finally, I can view the page in two resolutions and it will smoothly lay out (closer to the way I want) on both

158571b521a081ed6a18db4f418ad38d4c3b2debd2dc1e860b0c9a1277997858.jpg
[Hide] (46.2KB, 387x500)

There is no technological solution to a problem that is ultimately political/social.
Whatever fancy protocols you come up with it is possible to subvert it by sheer force.

So why are internet scum so opposed to grabbing and deploying political power, on the internet? Every neckbeard libertardian thinks politics is a dirty word. and the shithole www of today is the inevitable outcome of this white trash philosophy.

>>18917
I don't, but i know feds hate the idea of something they can't control becoming relevant politically or otherwise.

The fact (real)  political discussion on the internet is the most poisoned well in the history of mankind should tell you something.

slack-penguin-bw.gif
[Hide] (4KB, 258x303)

>>18917
The most valid concern I've seen is that politics is a very big stick that isn't always appropriate for the scale of your problem. The other thing is that if you aren't careful, you can give your party crazy powers to deal with one problem which then get used against you when you're kicked out.
There's obviously a place for it, but it's something you gotta be careful about. Otherwise you get crap like the current wave of tech-illiterate boomers destroying the web because they have no idea what "just make everything check your ID, how hard can it be?" implies.

I mean in general. A good example of what I'm talking about is brown people insisting to use usraeli social media like whatsapp and X while bombs are turning them into meatfetti. How stupid can people be? They had their actual dicks blown off by their sail foams a year ago and they keep using them. I saw some brown woman in lebanon say "how can kids learn without power for their phones?" INSANE. What is a pencil and paper bitch?

It's some kind of animal passivity. Animals don't plan ahead in a fight and neither do 99% of people on the internet. Nobody forces you to sit and do nothing while LLMs turn the entire web into the Truman Show. But asking people to use their own hands and brains to make their own handmade computer programs to talk to other poeple is like asking a monkey to fly to mars. Even though LLMs put this ability into everyone's hands because you can just say "HOW DO I TCP YOU FAGGOT ROBOT" and it will explain in perfect detail without having a tism rage like the faggots on stack overflow.

First off, internet /= web.

But also, the web has no practical purpose to begin with, an entire operating system specification built from several worst in class standards, possibly the worst programming language ever made (and oh boy does this title have competition), and 2 implementations that compete for worst piece of software ever written, all just to send and receive text and files in the most devious rube goldberg machine ever devised is a monumentally retarded idea from the start. 

And it's so blatantly obvious from a glance that anyone who didn't already know this before I made this post either lacks the beginner level knowledge in network protocols, programming language design, serialization formats, etc, or is not right in the head, which scares me a lot, because it means most programmers are clinically retarded if they did not form an alliance and vow to never write nor allow anyone else to write any javascript, json, HTML, etc upon first seeing those out of sheer disgust.

peak_webpage_design.jpg
[Hide] (117.7KB, 800x600)

eyecandy_elpher_gopherhole.png
[Hide] (493KB, 1080x1920)

>>18923
>the web has no practical purpose to begin with
To be fair, back in the early 90s it must have seemed like a great idea to give the writer of the document the power to specify the colour of the background and the ability to embed some pictures into the text. But as those horrible late 90s webpages showed, it only really gave people the power to waste bandwidth with unnecessary clutter. And by the 2000s it became obvious that you could also use it to track people and to build ever more centralized systems.

And in hindsight, the very idea that someone else should decide for you the exact appearance of a hypertext document is flawed. How could some random faggot know better my preferred colour scheme and font than I do? Not to mention that I like it when I can both read text and stare at fat 2D tits at the same time, which is not a feature supported by the average website. At least by now many websites have both a light and a dark colour scheme, but it's not standard, and many of those themes are quite horrible. Not to mention that websites have to support a practically infinite variety of resolution and aspect ratios, so the more elaborate and specific a website's design the less likely that it'll work as intended.