Looping redirects on archive.XX urls often traces back to the use of Cloudflare DNS resolver .. the archive folk have some beef with Cloudflare over (?) handling privacy (?) and loop redirects on connections that arrive via that path.
It's a new captcha type for myself also. Interesting as it requires spatial reasoning and a bridge of understanding between text request and objects in images - although it falls to the usual farm of human captcha solvers.
nice, well i am using quad9; archive.org had 503's too (edit: lol i wonder if it did complete for me but somehow something else caused a loop - i never went to the search prompt afterward)
i prefer them laid flat out too - grinds my gears when there is a wall of text, then trying to use the browsers built-in-search to find a text i remember but cannot find due to some hover/click-element that only displays text sometimes. though - i do not mind a list of sources at the bottom nor embedded within a bracket or w/e - there are many standards
(i guess what is worse are pages which re-invent the wheel and re-implement text-searching, like [gitlab i think], where the browser search is broken as its only displaying a sub-section of text at any given moment and browser search fails unless you scroll a page down and find again)
Ugh, this has become a huge issue with text editing controls. More and more, I find that content gets unloaded once it’s out of the editor’s viewport, making the browser’s built-in search fail.
we need a yt deshitter for (maybe one exists?): when mousing over the seek-bar, the time displayed goes from the time where im hovering over, to a huge-chunk of the bar displaying 'most replayed' in several areas (not just one, which "most" implies)
Tell me about it. From my conversations with many other engineers right now, this seems to be the standard. For some reason companies really have us by the balls at this moment.
and 3: its also windows 11 on the handheld - its not comparing a desktop (edit- or many desktops for that matter) with steamos on it vs some windows. (though i can see somebody debloating 11 and dropping it on the device - why not?)
> We then installed Windows 11 on the handheld, downloaded updated drivers from Lenovo's support site, and re-ran the benchmarks on the same games downloaded through Steam for Windows.
You can be sure that gamers are going to install SteamOS onto their desktops once it supports more kinds of hardware.
Yes gamers could install Bazzite right now, but those that are open to switching away from Windows aren't going to if they don't have a large company that can fund the support focused primarily on the issues that gamers are going to experience.
yup, agreed- worth going over the non tl;dr (sufficient to say the tl;dr misses some good juice, but thats what the page in full is for).
i was sorta curious on the policy changes over time, since botghost has been around since '18. all i can say is good luck to botgost
histories of policies-ish:
- from the tl;dr (they also explain #4 as well in the non-tl;dr):
> Discord issued a breach notice to BotGhost, claiming the platform violates Developer Policy 4 by handling bot tokens, which has been a core part of how BotGhost has worked since 2018.
> 4. Do not collect, solicit, or deceive users into providing passwords or other credentials. Under no circumstances may you or your Application request or attempt to obtain login credentials from Discord users. This includes information such as passwords or account access or login tokens.
> Do not collect, solicit, or deceive users into providing user login credentials. Under no circumstances may you or your Application solicit, obtain, or request login credentials from Discord users in any way. This includes information such as passwords or user access or login tokens.
- and archive.org of github of the before 2022 change (mentioned in the above archive) (does not really mention collecting of user auths - as per my quick glance [i welcome a double check]): https://web.archive.org/web/20220921062136/https://github.co...
> NEITHER DISCORD NOR ITS AFFILIATES, SUPPLIERS, OR DISTRIBUTORS MAKE ANY SPECIFIC PROMISES ABOUT THE APIs, API DATA, DOCUMENTATION, OR ANY DISCORD SERVICES.
The existence of terms like this make any discussion of the other terms look pretty silly.
Their policy is simply that they do whatever they want, and that hasn't changed.
It's also funny how selective-enforcement the discord TOS and dev policies are -- they turn a blind eye if not even encourage third party/modified first party clients "because retro" / "haha discord on windows 95 funny" (and even encourage it in some cases), yet those modified clients are explicitly banned in the TOS.
Every business does this. Every business. Every institution, even.
Rules are there for a few reasons, but precisely enumerating the things you can and cannot do isn't one of them. (That's why programmers definitely shouldn't litigate pro se.)
One purpose is to try to indemnify the institution making the rules: "See, we said you're not allowed to do X. Damages resulting from X aren't our fault." Another purpose is to deter bad behaviour: if they say you're not allowed to do X, you're less likely to do X. A third purpose is to provide cover for their actions - most easily by writing a rule that literally everyone breaks and then selectively enforcing it, or by writing vague rules you can selectively interpret. If they can punish you and then point to a rule you allegedly broke, you're more likely to accept it and less likely to retaliate. Notice how all of these purposes have to do with manipulating other people. (Are you reminded of any countries?)
You should do it too, if you want to be successful in an amoral business environment. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Unless your customers pay extra for well-defined rules to create a stable environment for themselves. In that case, you should do that, and take their money. That sort of thing is, for example, why some people would rather pay more for a technically inferior Fairphone or Librem than a flagship Android phone or iPhone.
can only hope that if the buy happens, that they keep that 'free version' (aka not logged in mode) 1:1 as it is today, and competitive (or better) than others. otherwise i fear the big #RIP and soon we'll be using company level accounts to these LLMs.
looks like the archivers have trouble with it too; reminds me of the behavior of a virus with all the redirects lol
edit: for those with custom filterlists via ubo:
- ||iop.org