331–340 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is not correct
Are you disputing that Gaza had more births than reported deaths during this period, or do you have other examples of “genocides” where the population grew during their genocide?
Account created 1 hour ago and only made these two comments, no others. Dang should investigate where these bots are coming from.
There was a feature on Amazon Web Services for a while, and I wish it was still there... Downloader pays. I make some content and upload it. When you want to download it, you pay Amazon the egress fees. And maybe I get to charge just a bit more, to help me with the Ingress, storage, content creation, etc. I mean, I know that there's going to be problems with rate limiting, etc. And yes, we have those problems with LL…
Note the Amazon egress fee is one hundred times anywhere sane's egress fee.
I don't know, maybe WebTorrent should have been the answer? For upcoming, viral content?
But for the deep archives, like the Wayback Machine? I feel like I'd happily pay for egress, and a bit to support them. If it was automatic and built in...
I wish Flattr or something like it had thrived...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're donating, then you are evidently willing to pay without any "buts". So aren't you arguing against your own actions?
Not at all. I donate to Internet Archive, but we're talking here about paying for unobstructed access to but one part of their service: Wayback Machine. Two different things.
I think that we should all pay when asked for things which we find useful, even if they aren't perfect. If nobody else is offering anything, then we have to take what's being offered. When there's a market, more providers will begin offering their versions.
I really appreciate the Archive team's efforts to make the Wayback Machine more responsive, and have donated a few times to support them. Unfortunately, the restrictions have been way too strict for the last few months: from my residential IP, simply moving the mouse on the calendar for a specific URL is enough to get stuck on 429 error messages for a while; and from corporate ISPs (for example, on airport WiFi), you…
Generally speaking I feel like detecting the bots might be a lost cause. For someone like the Internet Archive I don't know how to deal with it, for smaller sites, cache everything, static pages whenever possible. Sadly I see rate-limiting usage in general becoming a thing. With residential proxies and more sophisticated bots either pretending to be Chrome or directly piloting Chrome, it's going to become impossible…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally speaking I feel like detecting the bots might be a lost cause. For someone like the Internet Archive I don't know how to deal with it, for smaller sites, cache everything, static pages whenever possible. Sadly I see rate-limiting usage in general becoming a thing. With residential proxies and more sophisticated bots either pretending to be Chrome or directly piloting Chrome, it's going to become impossible…
we’ve been using Datadome at work for this because it’s nice to get someone else to think about the constant bot cat and mouse, and we all benefit from rules and fixes created from other client data. Not an ad- that service is eye watering expensive but I think it makes sense as something to offload.
Mad props to the people at the Archive. You are the heros we need in a formerly open internet that is surrendering to evil big corps and closing down free access. The Internet Archive is in a really bad spot being attacked from multiple sides at once. But — while service has not been consistent — they have maintained open access. I can still access anonymously from Tor without Cloudflare or some other centralized gat…
I donate to them every year b/c I fully agree they’re doing a thankless critical job very well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gatekeeping information is not the solution
Do you have a library card?
Edit:clarification
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would any chatbot provider attack Wikipedia *legally*? Captcha is fully solved, and agents are fully capable of acting as editors, pushing any agenda desired by the user.
Strangers can't really edit Wikipedia any more, especially if their edit is suspicious. It's a closed system despite the appearance. An anti-vandal bot or human will quickly revert your edit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why folks continue to use them confuses me. Seems like the “confused” is disingenuous when not paying for content you read is a clear motivation.
Convenience as a higher order motivator than disgust at the bad behavior of archive.{today,ph,...} mentioned elsewhere, I think is the point of the comment to which you replied.
Disgust requires research, analysis, and decision. The research alone is beyond most users' general practice.
Why would anyone walk in the front door when they could hop a fence, pry open a window, and crawl in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you disputing that Gaza had more births than reported deaths during this period, or do you have other examples of “genocides” where the population grew during their genocide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Account created 1 hour ago and only made these two comments, no others. Dang should investigate where these bots are coming from.