No, it’s not just about stalkers, it’s about harassment in general. But even if it were, even stalkers are still people and don’t work fundamentally different.
Feel free to show any research proving me wrong, but unless you find any, the reasonable position is “humans work the same on this topic as on others”.
I know, but it still didn’t fully remove it.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be fully removed to have an effect.
The thing is that there really is no price, nor was there ever one. Your suggestion that you think there is demonstrates that the way blocking worked gave people dangerously wrong ideas.
Sorry, but you don’t get to redefine how humans work. There is a price, because friction reduces the likelihood of people following through. Removing that friction increases the likelihood of people following through. You might not want to believe this to be the case, but please read studies on the topic - it’s just how humans work. You don’t get to dismiss negative effects because you don’t believe in them.
Twitter massively reduced visibility for logged-out users, so just logging out doesn’t help, you have to log into a different account. This additional fraction reduces the amount of harassment a lot. Not sure that being “more honest” is worth the price, especially when an info box could achieve the same without making harassment easier.
As my blood type always says: be positive!
I mean, I’m not B+, but I like the sentiment.
No. Security through obscurity is bad security, but it’s still an additional layer. And since there’s literally no way to 100% ensure that a machine is being controlled by a human, there’s literally no other way except saying “fuck it” and not doing any security at all.
It’s not. PHP used to use the function length as hash buckets, so by having evenly distributed lengths the execution time was faster. No idea where GP came up with that.
I love it. Finally, I remember what these pictures felt like before I knew they were bullshit. It’s a certain mysticism that was missing.
If you can’t reject, they either don’t need the pop-up, or they’re not in compliance with the law. Either way it’s in no way the fault of the lawmakers.
It’s not just a warning, it’s also an option to reject.
It’s an interesting question! From my point of view, “devaluing human effort” (from an artistic perspective) doesn’t really matter - humans will still be creating new and interesting art. I’m solely concerned about the shift in economic power/leverage, as this is what materially affects artists.
This means that if your robot creates paintings with an output rate comparable to a human artist, I don’t really see anything wrong with it. The issue arises once you’re surpassing the limits of the individual, as this is where the power starts to shift.
As an aside, I’m still incredibly fascinated by the capabilities and development of current AI systems. We’ve created almost universal approximators that exhibit complex behavior which was pretty much unthinkable 15-20 years ago (in the sense that it was expected to take much longer to achieve current results). Sadly, like any other invention, this incredible technology is being abused by capitalists and populists for profit and gain at the expense of everyone else.
There’s a simple argument: when a human studies Van Gogh and develops their own style based on it, it’s only a single person with very limited output (they can only paint so much in a single day).
With AI you can train a model on Van Gogh and similar paintings, and infinitely replicate this knowledge. The output is almost unlimited.
This means that the skills of every single human artist are suddenly worth less, and the possessions of the rich are suddenly worth more. Wealth concentration is poison for a society, especially when we are still reliant on jobs for survival.
AI is problematic as long as it shifts power and wealth away from workers.
Yet for some reason, browsers started supporting other formats like WebP, even though even fewer consumers wanted them. This makes complete sense when looking at it from the perspective “the companies try to save money and increase market share without caring about the consumer”. How do you explain it from yours?
I once had to go on a longer medical leave, couple of months. In preparation, I documented everything - pages upon pages answering all questions in easily searchable formats. For more than a month, any questions I got were answered with links to specific sections in the documentation, so people would know where to find everything. I put the links everywhere, in total there were at least 200 links to various sections of the documentation throughout all our communication mediums, as well as all information repositories.
After I came back from leave, most of the things I was responsible for were turned off. When I asked why, the response was “we didn’t find your documentation”.
I no longer care whether things keep working.
That would be a worthwhile idea if any evidence pointed towards it (e.g. any public documentation about legal communications).
Without any evidence, it’s a useless accusation for an explanation that:
I can accuse you of any number of horrible things, and I’d have the same amount of evidence you have for your accusation. What would this add to the discussion?
Then tell me: what else could the reason be? Why make people deliberately think you’re stupid? What’s the advantage?
And yes, this is a thing that happens literally to thousands of people every day. Almost everyone has a “I didn’t make backups” story. Humans aren’t born perfect - they make mistakes and learn from them. How many doctoral theses do you think are lost every day due to missing backups? Or how much art, how much data in general?
Instead of assuming some evil genius agenda hiding behind their stupid stated reason, you could just try to accept that people make mistakes. But you surely don’t ever make any, so why would anyone else?
They told you their reason: they were inexperienced. Why do you assume they must be lying, and hiding another reason?
“We lost access to the source code because we didn’t use VCS or make backups”
“Well, it would be rude to think they’re not smart enough to make a backup[…]”
No, what’s rude is assuming that people are lying to you without good reason.
They aren’t invading the privacy here. They are preventing a malicious actor from running an attack via VPN and ssh tunneling in addition to IP address, device, etc. At worst they are associating IP with browsing at competing stores. Preventing the VPN was likely required by a lawyer and auditor and a risky attack vector for a billion dollar company.
Then why do their ToS say they use this data for advertising purposes? If they really need to be able to track you to prevent malicious actors, they can do so without using the data for advertising.
Nice code, good job!