It seems to be self correcting thank you!
edit: wanted to edit and give more context for future searches. Nutomic gave insight here (https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/1986#issuecomment-1671036006)
Lemmy refetches users and their public keys every 24 hours, so after that time the federation will work fine.
Indeed, and many are allowed to go about their lives while awaiting trial.
We have to be especially careful with people with significant resources. Any small mistakes caused by moving quickly can be leveraged for less consequences do to technicalities. In these cases, being reactionary is a detriment.
I think they call it “due process”.
I ran into an issue similar to this while hosting my server. Turns out there is a ”feature“ (seems bugged) on my ASUS router called “DDOS Protection” that mistook inbound lemmy traffic as attacks and just dropped them instead of forwarding them. Once that was disabled everything worked like normal. Maybe be worth trying.
Be ready to use other methods to deal with DDOS though.
This is primarily where the moral argument and thus division appear. Is it fair to ask a person to pay more than their share? I would argue no, it seems a majority here would argue yes. I’m ok with being wrong and learning, but I have a hard time shifting what I believe to be moral foundations.
edit: I appreciate you revisiting your statement and it makes a lot of sense. Something I’ll be thinking about a lot more.
The idea behind social security is a forced time phased retirement program. The cap for input of money serves to cap the withdrawal later in years. If the wealthy put in a significantly larger amount while working they will be entitled to a proportionally larger about of withdrawal later. We’re just robbing peter to pay paul here and kicking the issue down the road.
A real solution would be to produce a margin that is invested in a total market fund that would eventually create self sustaining returns to both: pay out current withdrawals as well as grow to match inflation and population growth. But that’s not going to happen.
TLDR: The ponzi scheme will continue.
“have you tried turning it off and back on again?”
i.e. i’ve seen it correct itself by unsubscribing and subscribing again
gotcha ok i think i’m getting it. just to make sure i’m not missing anything, you’re saying that in this case it didn’t matter as in the end they could use any TLD and achieve the same effect.
but in general, threat actors hope to confuse people into thinking this “.zip” TLDs are only referencing local files instead of web addresses. right?
i think i understand that part but why is this specific event “another reason to block this TLD”? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there another inherit security issue with .zip that doesn’t exist with other domains?
i concur. i too wanna know.
sorry i’m missing it. why this specific TLD? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there something special with .mov?
sorry i’m missing it. why this specific TLD? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? why is this a reason to block it?
i just installed debian in an old laptop and paid google for a domain for $1 a month ($12/year).
doing it primarily because it seems like a cool thing to mess with and i’ve already learned cool things like DDNS and how to establish free https certificates via “let’s encrypt”. it’s pretty enlightening.
Looks like it is self-correcting and resolves within 24 hours.