3 ms·

>what's one more run-around? I have no idea, I recognise them instinctively and just skip to the end. Nobody's talking about any of your red-herrings. The topi

>what's one more run-around? I have no idea, I recognise them instinctively and just skip to the end. Nobody's talking about any of your red-herrings. The topic is a rate limit set high enough that no human could accidentally trigger it. Let's discuss that topic or agree not to discuss.

JetAlone 5y ago
Ah, so my doubt was correct, you're dissatisfied! Even when I assume good faith and try to lay out the points as best I can, to give my best shot at justifying my argument like you asked, they're suddenly all "red-herrings". >The topic is a rate limit set high enough that no human could accidentally trigger it. No, that's not the topic I was writing about. Discussing this would be a change of topic, because this entire time we were talking about a system that the author did accidentally trigger while making perfectly legitimate use of the system to try and restore his account in an understandably emotional state, and the machine profiled his typing cadence, IE the rate at which he was typing, as basis to deny him service. Here is the excerpt: "I still hadn’t heard back from Instagram so I sent them another complaint, angrier this time, typing with a great noisy clacking of the keyboard, warning that the longer they took to act, the more they put their users at risk. This wasn’t about me, I wrote, except, implicitly, in all the ways that it was about me. I slapped the send button and a warning box immediately popped up that said: ‘Facebook’s systems determined that you were going too fast when taking an action. You must significantly slow down. You are engaging in behaviour that may be considered annoying or abusive by other users.’ So now I was the troll? Me, with my burner, my bugging device, my fake account and my self-righteous mission? It was an outrage." I specifically said I was okay with rate limiting physical constraints that make service more efficient like post bandwidth, but I am not okay with using any kind of analysis of user's direct button inputs themselves to assess their likely intentions. >Let's discuss that topic or agree not to discuss. Deal. You have decided not to talk about what I was actually talking about in the first place, and I refuse to agree to switch topics to "that topic" IE your obviously shifted goal post, and we both move on to greener pastures. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/bots/what-is-rate-limiting/ https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/bots/what-is-rate-limiti... Above is a great post about what rate limiting is. Rate-limiting is not about monitoring key presses, it is about requests sent to the server. At the bottom of this page, they describe "bot management", IE trying to detect a bot by inputs made in the page. An example would be ctrl+f'ing quickly to search through a page on twitter for something particular, causing your account to get locked. Which can also be infuriating, and is a lot more like what I'm talking about. Everyone who posted in thread besides from me has been "getting it twisted", by conflating rate-limiting with input monitoring when I have been unequivocably stating the distinction between the two as soon as the "zinger" accusation was first made. But that's how they do it on hacker news, one "You're against X?" or "Ah, then you must be for Y" derails the entire conversation and people with the reading comprehension and good faith to put it back together are just absent somehow. Hecking Genius.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  >conflating rate-limiting with input monitoring when I have been unequivocably stating the distinction between the two as soon as the "zinger" accusation was first made. What you are doing here is making that esoteric assumption that their rate limiting is being triggered by _how fast the user is typing_ and then writing essay after essay about how inappropriate it is. Nobody has provably stated that 'Facebook’s systems determined that you were going too fast when taking an action.' refers to typing cadence instead of frequency of replies. That point needs to be proven before being discussed. Please back up your assumption if you wish it to be discussed. Few people want to waste their life discussing paranoid fantasies.

JetAlone 5y ago

Ah, so my doubt was correct, you're dissatisfied! Even when I assume good faith and try to lay out the points as best I can, to give my best shot at justifying my argument like you asked, they're suddenly all "red-herrings". >The topic is a rate limit set high enough that no human could accidentally trigger it. No, that's not the topic I was writing about. Discussing this would be a change of topic, because this entire time we were talking about a system that the author did accidentally trigger while making perfectly legitimate use of the system to try and restore his account in an understandably emotional state, and the machine profiled his typing cadence, IE the rate at which he was typing, as basis to deny him service. Here is the excerpt: "I still hadn’t heard back from Instagram so I sent them another complaint, angrier this time, typing with a great noisy clacking of the keyboard, warning that the longer they took to act, the more they put their users at risk. This wasn’t about me, I wrote, except, implicitly, in all the ways that it was about me. I slapped the send button and a warning box immediately popped up that said: ‘Facebook’s systems determined that you were going too fast when taking an action. You must significantly slow down. You are engaging in behaviour that may be considered annoying or abusive by other users.’ So now I was the troll? Me, with my burner, my bugging device, my fake account and my self-righteous mission? It was an outrage." I specifically said I was okay with rate limiting physical constraints that make service more efficient like post bandwidth, but I am not okay with using any kind of analysis of user's direct button inputs themselves to assess their likely intentions. >Let's discuss that topic or agree not to discuss. Deal. You have decided not to talk about what I was actually talking about in the first place, and I refuse to agree to switch topics to "that topic" IE your obviously shifted goal post, and we both move on to greener pastures. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/bots/what-is-rate-limiting/ https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/bots/what-is-rate-limiti... Above is a great post about what rate limiting is. Rate-limiting is not about monitoring key presses, it is about requests sent to the server. At the bottom of this page, they describe "bot management", IE trying to detect a bot by inputs made in the page. An example would be ctrl+f'ing quickly to search through a page on twitter for something particular, causing your account to get locked. Which can also be infuriating, and is a lot more like what I'm talking about. Everyone who posted in thread besides from me has been "getting it twisted", by conflating rate-limiting with input monitoring when I have been unequivocably stating the distinction between the two as soon as the "zinger" accusation was first made. But that's how they do it on hacker news, one "You're against X?" or "Ah, then you must be for Y" derails the entire conversation and people with the reading comprehension and good faith to put it back together are just absent somehow. Hecking Genius.

Lascaille 5y ago
>conflating rate-limiting with input monitoring when I have been unequivocably stating the distinction between the two as soon as the "zinger" accusation was first made. What you are doing here is making that esoteric assumption that their rate limiting is being triggered by _how fast the user is typing_ and then writing essay after essay about how inappropriate it is. Nobody has provably stated that 'Facebook’s systems determined that you were going too fast when taking an action.' refers to typing cadence instead of frequency of replies. That point needs to be proven before being discussed. Please back up your assumption if you wish it to be discussed. Few people want to waste their life discussing paranoid fantasies.