We use Fastly (and our site is down too) but I asked them about this a couple of years ago.
It is deliberate.
They said it was so they can tell if it is their Varnish service or the customer's Varnish service that is down
That's OK then, if that's we all have to do to run any devices inside our LAN/home network.
Want a NAS box for sharing family files/photos or some other IoT device at home? Just set yourself up some other device to run the docker image, get your self a certificate from LetsEncrypt and then... install it on the NAS box? How does that happen?
Reading about this study and the experiences described in other comments, it seems the experiment is a bit limited in its scope.
The effect of music depends on the person, the type of music (lyrics or instrumental - even if there is applause or not), how well the person knows the music and, of course, the task itself and its complexity.
Until there's a way to test all of those permutations, I think the best we are going to do is rely on all our anecdotal evidence, as it affects ourselves.
There are a few reasons, but since you worded that question ambiguously, I'm not sure if you know that HTTPS doesn't protect privacy. It can verify data in-transit is not tampered (maybe--see NSA note below), but nothing is anonymous (both sides of the connection, and everyone in the middle, know who they're talking to). Maybe the URL is private, but that's a very low bar for privacy.
There's also a problem with how certificate authorities are run which I strongly disagree with. People trust them because corporations trust them, which is already bad, because those same corporations are in-bed with NSA and probably other "security" agencies (which are hard to tell apart from criminal syndicates). If we moved to an HTTPS-only world (Universe, please forbid) there would be an absolute CA racket, and any website could be censored by having the CA revoking its certificate. I fear very much for that possibility, and I completely disagree with the direction that corporate browsers are taking by moving towards HTTPS-only, and especially false messaging like when Chrome reports websites as "non-secure". Firefox, which along with Mozilla is almost entirely funded with Google dollars, is going the same direction.
Another problem is if an ISP is tampering with a customer's connection, that is a social problem and not a technical one. Sure, some technical measures may mitigate that from happening, but ultimately the problem is social and users of that network should stop using it, or start tunneling their traffic some other way.
I provide HTTPS as a convenience for people downloading my software who otherwise wouldn't check my PGP sigs. Browsers like Chrome have false messaging claiming sites are "not secure" and techno-illiterate users don't understand what that really means, and they complained, so I listened but still advise everyone to check the signatures anyway.
Another major reason is that I don't care to support HTTPS for the rest of my life on my personal website. If I were to start supporting it, then everyone will start linking to the HTTPS version, then I could never get rid of that because redirecting back to HTTP requires HTTPS. I never collect any kind of data through my website--there are no form submissions, it's read-only and purely serves .html pages (not even server-side rendering). There's not really a purpose to a secure connection for that.
This only scratches the surface of these problems. I won't even get into how certificate authorities assign, then revoke, bogus certificates all the time--but that happens more than they will ever admit to. If you do a search for that, even just on Ars Technica, you'll find a lot of examples.
My biggest complaints may be summarized as, "we need completely distributed human-to-human trust without any corporate authorities."
One of the reasons I don't switch to Firefox full time is that it (still, after many years) leaks memory.
Use Task Manager to see how much RAM Firefox is using once it's been open a while.
It is unlikely you are seeing a memory leak, it is far more likely you are seeing caching. Using spare memory is far better than not using it - and if another app needs it, FF will free it up.
I doubt many other people here are going to ditch Electron completely - the current 'favourite' dev tool is Visual Studio Code which is an Electron app.
Even though Electron is actually a Microsoft supported platform, I understand the connection with Google - Electron uses Chromium rendering engine.
But, this is not the same as Chrome. Chrome uses Chromium [1] but I think all the privacy issues are part of Chrome, not Chromium.
If you look in the clickbait at the bottom of lots of articles, you'll see one advertising a trick that every Android user should know.
It takes you to a website at SecuritySaversOnline.com which has an Advertorial for TotalAV anti-virus, that implies it is free, which it isn't.
I posted a negative review of this site and then called TotalAV to inform them of this site that was perhaps a fake affiliates site, but during the chat, they said it was their site - TotalAV were using a site with fake offers to advertise them.
So, I posted a negative review of them too on TrustPilot - it's one of the 1* reviews here: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/totalav.com?languages=en&st... (search for cyberspy)
TotalAV disputed my claims, but I demonstrated to TrustPilot that it was a genuine review, even though I wasn't a customer and the review remains.
Why is TrustPilot broken?
TotalAV have over 31K reviews, 87% 5, average 4.8 - but most of them one liners from people who have no review history.
Compare with other AV providers - Sophos have 11 reviews, average 2.1, AVG have 2534, average 1.9, McAfee 358 average 1.4, Norton 347, average 1.5
Basically, people don't review their AV unless thay have a bad experience - or the supplier asks them to.
I pointed out to TrustPilot that TotalAV's review profile looked fake but, while they let my review stay they have done nothing to rectify the entirely disproportionate review profile of TotalAV
Though less serious, my wife has a similar problem with Amazon. She tried to review a product (first review for a very long time) and was greeted with this message:
"! We apologize but Amazon has noticed some unusual reviewing activity on this account. As a result, all reviews submitted by this account have been removed and this account will no longer be able to contribute reviews and other content on Amazon. If you would like to learn more, please see our community guidelines. To contact us about this decision, please email reviews - help@amazon.co.uk."
The 'community guidelines' link goes to a page with what the rules are, but doesn't say what rules have been broken.
We emailed Amazon, using the email address in the post and got this reply:
"I relayed your information to the team trained to handle this scenario regarding your inability to post reviews. They are not able to provide an exact date or time when they expect this issue to be resolved.
For more information about our policies, please see our Community Guidelines (http://www.amazon.co.uk/review-guidelines)
We appreciate your patience in this matter.
Warmest regards,"
'Warmest Regards'? Really - you just told me she's locked out and it's gonna stay like that for the foreseeable future. :(
