Daniel Stenberg is such a haxx.or, I guess.
Considered "18+"
111–120 of 156 posts
Re: Considered "18+"
#112Sigh Automatic classification of material as "adult" has always sucked. I remember watching a news report where schools filters had classified webpages referencing the current Super Bowl (Super Bowl XXX) as adult content due to XXX typically being associated with adult material. The opposite happens too - see Elsagate. The newest version of Elsagate material, which I've only seen one person talking about, is weird/in…
Yikes, this is so much worse than merely weird, though it definitely is that.
Here's the transcript from a couple, both of which are played over top of those "5-minute craft" style (faked) baking videos:
> > Someone knocked on the front door. I opened it and saw a strange tiny man standing there with a creepy smile on his face and he smells really good.
> > He said "Hi I'm Noah I'm looking for your dad, is he home?"
> > I replied "No he's out there looking for a stupid job."
> > I was about to close the door in his face when he suddenly pushed it back open. I screamed, I thought he was going to hurt me. He took off his glasses and told me to stay calm. He looked a lot less intimidating without his glasses on and his face was softer.
> > I said "okay, come on in"
https://youtu.be/HfcKCk6vPCE?t=436
Or:
> > After one of my live youtube videos one of my viewers sent a message asking if we could meet. It was a bit strange for someone to be so insistent, especially after what my brother was doing so I ignored him at first. Then, a few days later, he messaged me again. He said he knew how to deal with my brother. He believed me. I agreed to meet him but I was nervous. What if it's just a stupid prank, I wondered. I went to the coffee shop he had asked me to go to. I didn't even know his name.
> And in that story he turns out to be a handsome knight in shining armor who rescues her from all her troubled home life problems.
Re: Considered "18+"
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I had thought that TPB was blocked because of court orders. > So how come one ISP blocks it, and other doesn't?" The court order[1] had 6 defined defendants: - BRITISH SKY BROADCASTING LIMITED - BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC - EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED - TALKTALK TELECOM GROUP PLC - TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED - VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITED The court order only affected the listed ISPs (at that time, 94% share of the consu…
No obligation? The DA could sue immediately in the public interest, or if not it could be the original plaintiff, and then the remaining ISPs would have the opportunity to defend their cause themselves.
> The DA could sue immediately in the public interest…
It's not in the public interest to block TPB. The DA would be suing for the sake of private interests, against the public, and at the public's expense.
Re: Considered "18+"
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there's still devs that want the in-office life still..
We've been working home for 2 years. They want us to run all traffic through the VPN that applies the same filtering. Please excuse me if I forget to turn it on.
One would hope you still have separate personal device(s) which you can use without connecting through their VPN, in addition to the corporate-owned ones used for work. Or do they want you to run all your personal traffic through the VPN as well?
Re: Considered "18+"
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife's name is Aleksandra, but the short version of that is Ola. Similarly, Olek is a short for Aleksander. Also no idea why.
> Olek is a short for Aleksander. Very likely this is due to both being transliterations from Cyrillic.
This is correct.
Oleksander is Ukranian form of Aleksander.
Re: Considered "18+"
#1161. intercept traffic to IP 2. present custom "valid" certificate 3. ??? 4. profit! ... isn't this something that certificate transparency should help solve?
> isn't this something that certificate transparency should help solve? No. CT is meant to help find illegitimate server certificate issuance by participating CAs, but it cannot help the user-agent get past illegitimate server certs. Besides, the whole point here is to make the user-agent fail to load the page, therefore the network operator's firewall's CA would not participate in CT (nor be a CAB member), and the n…
> CT is meant to help find illegitimate server certificate issuance by participating CAs, but it cannot help the user-agent get past illegitimate server certs.
That's the point though. I'd rather the user-agent tell me that the certificate is invalid. That's as far as it's currently going anyway when a certificate is, for example, self-signed.
> Besides, the whole point here is to make the user-agent fail to load the page,
That's exactly the minimum that should happen, yes. User-agent sees that the certificate isn't correctly issued for the domain and refuses to send the HTTP request (though SNI is already sent...)
> the network operator does not just not mind that the illegitimate server certificate is noticed, they want it noticed.
More than just noticed: the network operator wants the user to inappropriately act on the illegitimate server certificate.
Re: Considered "18+"
#117A number of my personal sites end up blocked by corporate firewalls. It’s slightly infuriating. Even my own company. I got in a literal fight with IT needing to justify the why in why I needed access to my own website. Like I can live without it, but it’s nothing but my blog where I rant about tech. The why should be why is it blocked to begin with. The default state should not be blocked .
> a literal fight with IT
How did that pan out?
Re: Considered "18+"
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I had thought that TPB was blocked because of court orders. > So how come one ISP blocks it, and other doesn't?" The court order[1] had 6 defined defendants: - BRITISH SKY BROADCASTING LIMITED - BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC - EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED - TALKTALK TELECOM GROUP PLC - TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED - VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITED The court order only affected the listed ISPs (at that time, 94% share of the consu…
No obligation? The DA could sue immediately in the public interest, or if not it could be the original plaintiff, and then the remaining ISPs would have the opportunity to defend their cause themselves.
There's no DA in the UK.
Re: Considered "18+"
#119And if this wasn't bad enough, they want your credit card info to unblock the site.
Citation? I wonder if the card authorities would be pleased to hear that.
Re: Considered "18+"
#120I worked for over a decade as a DBA for one of the largest private data warehouse companies, and it was hilariously fun to get the so-called "naughty word list" for customer suppression reasons. I learned so many creative slurs based on where people live or were born.
Australians, in particular, have an amazing amount of curse words/racial slurs.