How is it a money printing machine? They sell domains at cost based on ICANN fees. They don’t mark them up like other registrars, which is one of the main ways to make money in that business.
How is it a money printing machine? They sell domains at cost based on ICANN fees. They don’t mark them up like other registrars, which is one of the main ways to make money in that business.
It clearly reads as autogenerated reply. It seems ambiguous to me still whether it’s thinking you’re trying to move your domains to squarespace and wondering if google sill keep data or if it’s about them moving domains to squarespace.
Though I’m general I’d assume if you move all your domains out of Google Domains before the transition, there shouldn’t be anything for them to transfer to squarespace.
What I remember attending a PHP event in ~2009 was one of the old veterans there saying:
Only Microsoft folks say “Sequel Server”, we say “My S Q L”
wait, what??? how did my reply end up on this thread? did I screw up? I was replying to https://beehaw.org/post/506525 I think.
The search engine market isn’t quite as diverse as it may appear https://www.searchenginemap.com/
There are maybe 4 or so ‘crawlers’, and the rest buys access to the part of their data they are willing to sell to others.
Running a crawler with the current size and complexity of the internet is expensive, and complicated. Then there is sifting and sorting the data in a reasonable searchable format, and then there is the quality problem, etc.
Much easier to license data access from a provider (Usually Bing or Google or both) and just offer some added features on top, like no tracking, different result UI, custom filtering values per Bing or Google’s APIs that make your own “secret sauce”, etc.
Thanks for the reply. If you don’t mind, I still have few questions.
I understand the value of a distributed architecture and federation. What I wasn’t sure about is the value of tons (thousands? hundreds of thousands? millions?) of small instances vs few hundred or thousand large ones.
This spread out architecture allows for lesser hosting costs per instance and if an instance goes down it does not mean the entire service goes down as a whole.
It seems that federation would put more pressure on all popular instances, no? the more popular an instance, the more likely others to want to federate with it, the more work it needs to do to push data, the more calls, etc. I understand that relays could spread out the load, but you’re just pushing the problem one more level. I already see wildly different numbers of comments on the same thread between the different instances depending on the home vs federated, with low usage (talking about <100 comments). It seems to take a long time for things to sync, and some comments don’t seem to sync.
And while sure, your own personal instance of Lemmy might be up and fine, if the popular instances you federate with are down, you’re essentially cut off still, right?
Additionally, it allows for easier moderation as moderators (admins?) are instance specific. You don’t have to moderate the whole of Lemmy, keeping your own house clean is enough.
You have to moderate any instance you allow to federate with still, right? Like either you lock down which instances you want to federate with (have an allowlist) or you block abusive instances (have a denylist) either way it’s a lot of management still. More flexible, for sure, but not exactly a walk in the park, right?
Can someone explain to me what’s the point in having a lot of small instances of something like Lemmy?
I’m very familiar with Azure, and looking at the docker-compose file and AWS setup, it’s very straightforward to setup a simple instance on Azure container apps. How much it costs you will highly depend on what you want to do with it and how you expect it to be used.
Like, how much traffic are you expecting?
How is it hard to use? It’s just a list of emojis by type with a search box like any phone.