Is there a thing to queue edits and automatically apply them slowly (assuming there hasn't been a preempting edit)?
— Ben N
Let's write a script!
Goals:
Queue up edits so not too many are applied at once
Apply them slowly with a timer
Detect if a new revision has been created since the...
Though maybe it'd be better to have an alternate button to start the edit; that one could notify the user of a queued conflicting one before they did any work
> The user is still responsible for all edit content. This isn't an excuse to spam poor edits, and doesn't give users the ability to do anything they normally can't. The only purpose is to prevent flooding of the front page.
I mean... if I wanted to slowly add poor edits I could easily do a one-off script
using the API
This is more complex, because it integrates with the normal edit workflow. It's supposed to be reusable.
If someone starts adding lots of bad edits, mods suspend the user — the tool makes no difference.
Here's an idea that can speed up this process: Let users edit questions with the tag, one after another, by automatically going to the next question once the current question's edit has been submitted, through a special editing page accessible from the tag page. The system would queue and complete the edits at the desired interval as the user works on editing other questions. — bwDraco1 min ago
Anecdotal examples are nice and all, but here's the real question: to what extent can individual communities/sites override network policies? To what extend should they be able to do so?
Well, they can override them to a fairly large extent, because the entire system is designed around commu...
Baaasically it seems that if the SU mod team and community are OK with some test questions for a specific, SE-constructive purpose, it should be good
All: superuser.com/questions/1254314/… user asks question, same username submits an answer that quotes existing answer to a different question , I already flagged as a duplicate
Regarding the storage of tokens on the server, perhaps it would be better to not do that and instead just have the server coordinate timing between clients
So clients could say "hey, I have this many edits" and the server's like "OK, I'll let you know when you can do one" and then later it's like "hey, you can fire one of those now"
There's slight potential for DoS by saying "hey, I'm doing a thousand edits!" and never doing them, but that shouldn't be terribly hard to automate against, and any abusers could probably be handled individually without terribly much trouble
You might as well use CC0 if this is your intention.
I'd personally prefer Apache 2.0 for new projects. It's permissive enough to allow broad integration with both open-source and proprietary software, while also providing solid protections, including against patent claims.
I think what you want to do is have all of the hosts that are connected to both the modem and the router be mutually addressable by MAC address at the Ethernet layer (layer 2), without having to be "routed through" an intermediate IP address hop (layer 3) in their routing table
so instead of 192.168.1.2 -> 192.168.1.1 -> 192.168.50.1 -> 192.168.50.14, from the IP layer it would be a "direct" 192.168.1.2 -> 192.168.50.14 connection
number of IPv4 hops from source to destination: 1
simply by hitting the MAC address of 192.168.50.14
(this would be determined by the Address Resolution Protocol)
that's basically what a bridge is; the implied thing being bridged is disparate Ethernet networks
@KronoS I don't think an ethernet bridge between two routers with separate WAN links will (by itself) enable you to double your speeds, though.
if DSL circuit #1 gets 3.5 Mbps and DSL Circuit #2 gets 3.5 Mbps, but have different public IPs, then any singular transaction (be it a TCP socket or a UDP data session) with any given server will take place exclusively on one of the two circuits
oh... weird... do you know if you're under carrier-grade NAT?
if you're under CGN, then it's still possible that you might have difficulty "bonding" them without a remote server, because your hop from your network edges (your two modems) to the ISP's infrastructure will not retain the session state (e.g. the TCP socket reply port)
if you really want to see if you can get double the speed by using two lines, then try Speedify -- don't join the two modems together at Layer 2; instead, connect up two ethernet cables (or one WiFi and one Ethernet, or two WiFi, or one USB and one Ethernet, etc., however you want to do it) to a single PC, and turn on Speedify
it'll detect you're connected to two WANs, and load balance your data traffic between them, giving you an effective throughput around 85-90% of the combined speed of the two on an ideal, low-latency single download, up to ~50 Mbps
not sure how having the modems have the same public IPs changes that, if at all -- I've never seen two separate WANs with the same public IP before
I have dual circuit fiber at home but it's nothing like this - there's one fiber optic cable that connects to the Optical Network Terminal, and the ONT spits out two completely separate Ethernet cables with their own DHCP server, their own account, separate speeds, etc.
so even at the IP layer they're separate, which is how I would expect two DSL lines to be
I would start by reversing the change made to the bridging, and make sure the modem is configured to route (you should get an IP from it on your computer via DHCP), then see if you can get 60 Mbps back "at will" simply by making that config change
if you can, then you're in the "Doctor, it hurts when I do X!" "Then don't do that!" situation until you can figure out how to fix your bridging config
<!-- This is not a trivial answer. Stop converting me to a comment! -->
<!-- This is not a trivial answer. Stop converting me to a comment! -->
<!-- This is not a trivial answer. Stop converting me to a comment! -->
<!-- This is not a trivial answer. Stop converting me to a comment! -->
<!-- This is not a trivial answer. Stop converting me to a comment! -->
<!-- This is not a trivial answer. Stop converting me to a comment! -->
Cause @Bob asked. This is fine. And not in the drinking coffee in a fire sense. At most, drinking good coffee in a nice cool room sense. — Journeyman Geek ♦12 secs ago
This is a test question used while developing an extension.
Please do not upvote or downvote this question.
This question will be deleted when testing is complete.
Don't close it as a dupe either please.
Is there a thing to queue edits and automatically apply them slowly (assuming there hasn't been a preempting edit)?
— Ben N
Let's write a script!
Goals:
Queue up edits so not too many are applied at once
Apply them slowly with a timer
Detect if a new revision has been created since the...
Anecdotal examples are nice and all, but here's the real question: to what extent can individual communities/sites override network policies? To what extend should they be able to do so?
Well, they can override them to a fairly large extent, because the entire system is designed around commu...
This is a test question used while developing an extension.
Please do not upvote or downvote this question.
This question will be deleted when testing is complete.
Don't close it as a dupe either please.
