IIRC, PF-dev Rimu recently explained exactly why he was trialing such limits in a recent software update post. I.e., to create a more efficient internal & external software / HW backbone, for us users, AFAIK. Based on network / host / server loads etc, as I read the updates.
But yeah… the amount of recent negative reaction so far upon that seems… weirdly outsized?
(like, WTF?)
Like-- who the heck comes here exhausted upon corporate social media, and expects a free, open-source community of devs not to tinker with the road-posts and such…?
Pardon my puzzlement here, but I’m a happy PF contributor, and love @PugJesus@piefed.social. Both the dev here and PJ are friends of a sort, and some people I will always try to support.
That’s supposedly part of the justification for the quota, but it hasn’t been shown or proven those top 3% or whatever are engaging in any malicious behavior. And it brings me back to "why not just investigate that 3% and deal with them individually? Or make reporting/tools to examine the behavior of those “problematic” 3% of users?
I’ve been outside working in the heat, so the best comparison I can come up with at the moment is how ISPs use the top 3% of power users to justify data caps for everyone.
*3% used as a “low percentage of users” since I don’t remember the exact numbers from the explanation post about this.
Mate, what “Iced Raktajino” level of anything possibly matches that level of hostile insecurity…?