Katarin Kiergarten

While I agree they probably won't, there's a difference between those other examples and agents that show up where we are, which isn't something that any of these other entities do. These show up where we work and live, in substantial numbers, without invitation. They aren't something we can easily avoid. So a higher degree of scrutiny for any roaming bot operators who want an exception to be made for them would be warranted. It might not be possible, but it would be completely reasonable.

One of the errors this expresses, I think—at least, I would argue it is an error—is to give equal stakeholder weight to all SL users, when some would be oblivious to the issues caused by roaming bots. Should the opinions of the uniformed / unaffected carry equal weight when devising solutions? I would say the rational answer is that no, they shouldn't. People who don't care might not see a reason to advocate for changes for those who do care, until or unless they learned more about the issues in question. So we have to start with considering the validity of a poll in which many people with little to no knowledge of the problems were allowed to weigh in without their input carrying less decision-making influence. I am sure some onlookers who are more egocentric would chafe at that, but expertise and experience count for a lot in relevant contexts; ignorance counts for little in most contexts, unless you're doing QA testing perhaps or needing to learn some other aspect of "the average user's" experience when encountering an unfamiliar situation. For those of us affected this situation has become quite familiar, as responses about this issue have shown. That might be a very different poll outcome from one that asked the general SL population the same questions.

Thank you for clarifying. It is unfortunately a much-overused tactic in RL to dismiss people for enforcing their boundaries, so there might need to be more typing to avoid that appearance here. And yes, as with all "this is why we can't have nice things" situations, a smaller number of people quietly taking advantage of some flex in the design of a system so they could do useful work that wasn't particularly intrusive quickly turns into an outcry when less ethical individuals (and more individuals in total; we have now reached a critical, unacceptable mass of such visits / intrusions given the number of people / projects / bots that have appeared lately) devise ways to exploit that same flexibility. And that's part of the problem we have here. It was ever thus. Now we have to have more specific rules because of those who can't operate or don't possess their own moral compasses. Systems are always stuck with responding to those who wish to exploit them unethically. I, for one, am thrilled that my landing points now only contain desired visitors again. So for the moment, until the new waves of rule circumvention begin, at least, this measure is very appreciated indeed. But perhaps in the debate about allowing "good" bots there can be a solution that allows those with good track records to continue, even if it's an opt-in feature (good for land / estate owners) rather than opt out (good for bot operators). Time will tell. Meanwhile I expect there will be functionality disruptions in such services—this is why we can't have nice things. I tire of exploitative people quickly as I am sure do many here. We still have to deal with them and pay the costs, unfortunately. It's like trying to do business on a handshake—that only works as long as everyone involved operates with the same level of integrity and consideration for others. I have never once seen that last in a large system.

While I agree with some of your concerns, and as an estate owner I'd probably whitelist your bot(s) and a few others that have a track record of doing good work and generally don't intrude if that option was available, making up a new phobia to dismiss the very real concerns that a lot of us have with relentless bots doesn't enhance your position in this debate. We simply don't want them. We don't have to have a reason that pleases any bot operator. No means no—it's a consent issue, not masses of SL users all having a psychological problem because bot operators don't like that we can now say no in a meaningful way.

It's a minor and, in most scenarios, irrelevant point for those who are used to how this works, but for those who haven't tried it before: It's been said or implied a few times on this thread that the 10% m2 bonus for group-owned land only applies if two or more accounts are involved in contributing m2 to the group that owns the land. This is not the case. You can be the sole contributor of m2 to a group and still get the 10% bonus. I'm doing that right now on my free 1024 m2, for a mainland parcel that is 1120 m2. Obviously there are overall-cost-based reasons to have multiple premium accounts contributing, and those have been discussed here at length, but the assumption that multiple contributing accounts are required is incorrect. You can take advantage of that bonus even with a single premium account.

Depending on your viewer of choice you can mute group IM sounds. (In Firestorm this is under Preferences > Sound & Media > UI Sounds 1 > Group Instant Message > [menu] "Mute this sound," and there are a couple of other options as well.)

I'm also seeing this error via someone trying to buy a parcel of mainland tonight.

For what it's worth. Details at the Flickr page for the video (click the title, "Motion Capture," in the video below). I'm updating there in the comments as relevant, so I won't duplicate that here. TL;DR: Pretty decent performance IF you upgrade macOS to 11.4. I cannot report on the performance of anything between 11.2.3 (pretty bad) and 11.4 (good), as that was the most current available when mine arrived.

Looks like the southern half of Heterocera and the western two-thirds of Sansara are stable from about 1% - 75% zoom. Areas of some other continents seem to appear and become stable at around 15-20%.

I tripped over this thread for completely unrelated reasons, but since I'm here, FYI: I happened to come across this Friday afternoon while following Route 2 around the north shore, and submitted a ticket about it. It has been fixed. No more Bermuda Triangle in Yucca. 🙂 There is a photo attached to the parcel that suggested a building used to be down on the water there, so that might be why the landing point was also down there, but I don't know for sure. You can now TP straight to the road.

I see what you did there. Which was easier than seeing what any of us are doing on the map.

A disable-crossfading feature request has been submitted: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-229152

My first thought about this is yes indeed, for those of us not on the latest hardware (and even those who are also notice it, it just doesn't materially affect their ability to us SL), this frame rate drop is inexcusable and crippling. It's the reason I am not actively testing this beta; I have things to get done regardless of which viewer I am using, so that kind of performance hit makes this DOA for me in terms of usability. The contrast is stark. There is nothing EEP does that would inspire me to give up half my fps. ETA: I'd also like to note, ironically, that @Kyle Linden very carefully tracked and made sure that BUG-225225 that affected my system was fixed, and that was rolled into EEP releases, which means I have been waiting for this fix for a year now since I exclusively use Firestorm. I can confirm that bug is gone as of this FS EEP beta, and so I don't have to leave on DoF anymore to work around it, but in exchange for that fix I lose half my fps, which was the whole reason I wanted to be able to stop using DoF to work around that bug—the performance hit. Even though I cranked the settings so it isn't actively (visibly) being applied, it still causes more viewer lag to have it on. So I would like to argue, if anyone is listening, that it is radically illogical to be concerned about a rare bug such as the one I and one other person reported, on older hardware, and then give us the fix on a viewer that is even more performance-crippled than the bug workaround was. Let's not go this direction please. This should be treated with as high of a priority as a bug like the one I found and Kyle made sure was fixed, if not higher, since this affects so many more people.

On my first visit to Aditi Blake a few minutes ago, I got through a few regions heading west from Blake Sea - Atlantic, with sublime crossings that were barely a blip (granted, this was in a 22 LTE, which can lay claim to that distinction in the main grid as well at times, but they were even better on the beta grid), then wiped out after jibing into Travethan and heading toward Buckle. I wasn't able to recover from that wipe-out even with "release keys," so I had to log off, and then got "despite our best efforts" errors when trying to log back in. Will try with a heavier boat when I can log in again later. Interesting development, for sure.

My home region went down at 6:26a and is still down now, over six hours later. So, can confirm issues of some kind. LL support indicated they'd take a look if it's still down after the restarts are over. No comment about scripts.

This is incorrect. Please refer to previous pages of this post for the much lower figures it fell to—at least as low as 23,000 at one point. So it dropped by nearly half, from a high of 43,000 when I first could not log back in when attempting a relog around 11:30a SLT this morning.

In-world is now 32148 per https://secondlife.com/httprequest/homepage.php (thank you to the person who posted that on this thread). Rezzing and editing objects hasn't been weird yet, but deletion of rezzed objects is a bit slow. That's about as dangerously as I'm living right now.

Unless all of this is from a definitive LL source it should be framed as speculation. 🙂

Just logged in. Cached things, at least, are loading quickly. Will update if there's anything interesting to report, but looks normal so far.

Thanks much, Grumpity. I'm certain none of LL's folks who are working on this are having a good time. We're just kicking it here in the meantime because we can. (So yay, the forum is working!) 🙂

Try Canada. Portland and Seattle are 1. full and 2. not a whole lot better off climate- and fire-wise.

Can confirm, however, being a bald default gray avatar for a few seconds and then disappearing entirely like most of those around me (just name tags) isn't necessarily a sign of a functional grid. /me backs away slowly

And now I'm playing with Sublime. Pretty sweet.

For those playing along, for whatever reason, now today's status is orange instead of yellow. I guess that means they're frowning harder, or they know we are. /facetious More seriously, it appears to correspond to the "partial outage" status described here (though "degraded performance" is the most serious status listed for any single component from SL's main status page, which is a yellow status), though the company doesn't explain the colors themselves explicitly: https://www.statuspage.io/features/core

Not even gonna get started about EEP. But we have no reason to think it's connected to this, no, until someone with firsthand knowledge shows up to say so.