I could justify it a number of ways, but the honest answer is "expiring these is more work that just hasn't been needed yet". We hit a handful of bad actors, banned them, have heard no negative outcomes, and there's really little indication of the behaviour changing. Unless something shows up and changes the equation, right now it looks like "extra effort to invite the bad actors back to do bad things" and... my day is already busy enough.
What would be incredible amusing would be re-implementing the java api in some other language using only the api documentation. The Supreme Court has ruled that is fair use, so what could possibly go wrong?
People have been speaking too fast in public since the beginning of public speaking. It's just nerves making us press forward too quickly, and sometimes people are worried it will be too boring if they speak slowly. I was taught to speak far slower than is comfortable - and it will come out just right.
I've taken a few public speaking classes and I remember one made a point of remembering to pause.
I also remember a senior IBM exec who, during Q&A at analyst conferences, would make notes (or seemed to) which served a few purposes including just taking a few seconds to collect his thoughts.
AppleTV is pretty random and only vaguely incidental to the solution. Tailscale runs on computers. Basically anything will do. If you don't have a home server, just grab a cheap RPi or an old laptop. Or in a pinch drop it onto an old phone from your old phone drawer.
I just download the extension file, check it out, and install it locally. No worries about future updates until something breaks (doesn't tend to happen).
fair enough. I'll add that one fantastic use I've found for LLMs is quickly checking the source of a given addon (though obviously this is no replacement for a real audit or finely-grained permissions).
I'd be doing this type of thing a lot more if browsers didn't make it difficult to load unpacked addons (in which case I could be modifying things I didn't like on the fly).
Your examples don't seem to represent the leading causes of fatalities from traffic accidents in the US, which remain distracted driving (phones and crappy touchscreen controls, etc) and drunk driving. People rolling through a stop sign / performing a 'California' stop are nowhere near the massive security concern to authorize the ideal surveillance state. To deal with the bigger issues you would have to film peoples actions in their cars and run it all through ai to accuse them of driving while drowsy. That would be an incredible and lazy failure. Also, fatalities per mile had a massive surge in 2020-2021, but they have been steadily dropping since then (2024 in wikipedia estimated a 1.27 per 1m miles, about the same as 2008). If the trend continues, in a year or two we will be back to the early 2010s lows without draconian measures.
The solution, as always, is better infrastructure and support at multiple levels, not beating everybody with a stick.
I get the vibe from his comment that the visible deviance from rules of the state is what he's really concerned with and that the death and destruction is just the reason everyone else is suppose to care.
Every time I turn on ua switcher I wind up in an infinite loop with cloudflare captchas. I literally cannot turn it on because of the aggressive practice of this one company. I am going to try the chrome mask extension the other user just posted, since it deals with some js shenanigans as well.
Probably because your JA3 fingerprint does not match any known fingerprint of a public version of google chrome. Im not even sure if you can configure your ciphersuites in TLS Hello with just a lowly extension
That might be the how, but the because/why is that a company is arbitrarily enforcing horrible design decisions by many websites that force users to use specific browsers, and penalize/cripple those who try to work around such nonsense. There has to be a less lazy way of combating bots, if that is even the real reason for them being so aggressive about it (which I doubt - it's going to be about money for major stakeholders in the end).
From google's perspective it operates as a botnet consuming their resources and creating doubt as to the validity of their product among advertisers (disclaimer: I am not defending their business at all). That's the goal, but costing the advertisers themselves money doesn't necessarily follow.
In an alternate reality where tracking was 100% illegal all the time, would the ad revenue come closer to say 90%, with perhaps 10% choosing another medium altogether? These studies by ad companies seem to always presume their own perfect world where everything else remains just as it is.
reply