A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
{
"ostatus": "http://ostatus.org#",
"atomUri": "ostatus:atomUri",
"inReplyToAtomUri": "ostatus:inReplyToAtomUri",
"conversation": "ostatus:conversation",
"sensitive": "as:sensitive",
"toot": "http://joinmastodon.org/ns#",
"votersCount": "toot:votersCount"
}
],
"id": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643827715486516",
"type": "Note",
"summary": null,
"inReplyTo": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643704065219071",
"published": "2023-01-06T19:07:19Z",
"url": "https://sigmoid.social/@roban/109643827715486516",
"attributedTo": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/followers"
],
"sensitive": false,
"atomUri": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643827715486516",
"inReplyToAtomUri": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643704065219071",
"conversation": "tag:sigmoid.social,2023-01-06:objectId=4213598:objectType=Conversation",
"content": "<p>Your “optimal” threshold is pretty far from the heuristic you used before. But it’s better right? Then why does the change seem to have made things worse? Maybe your utility function isn’t quite right? You weighted the FPs by the observed mean cost of a false positive and FNs by the mean cost of observed false negatives. Oh, you derived your mean costs using historical data with the old threshold. But the new threshold acts on a different population, which isn’t guaranteed to behave identically.</p>",
"contentMap": {
"en": "<p>Your “optimal” threshold is pretty far from the heuristic you used before. But it’s better right? Then why does the change seem to have made things worse? Maybe your utility function isn’t quite right? You weighted the FPs by the observed mean cost of a false positive and FNs by the mean cost of observed false negatives. Oh, you derived your mean costs using historical data with the old threshold. But the new threshold acts on a different population, which isn’t guaranteed to behave identically.</p>"
},
"attachment": [],
"tag": [],
"replies": {
"id": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643827715486516/replies",
"type": "Collection",
"first": {
"type": "CollectionPage",
"next": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643827715486516/replies?min_id=109643922753180243&page=true",
"partOf": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643827715486516/replies",
"items": [
"https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643922753180243"
]
}
},
"likes": {
"id": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643827715486516/likes",
"type": "Collection",
"totalItems": 3
},
"shares": {
"id": "https://sigmoid.social/users/roban/statuses/109643827715486516/shares",
"type": "Collection",
"totalItems": 1
}
}