The others are right. Trying to stream from a torrent seems wasteful and complex.
But if you must for some strange reason, perhaps it would work to use webtor.io to produce an http-reachable audio file which could be curl/wget-fetched and piped to an audio decoder/player. I doubt you could make webtor fetch pieces linearly from the beginning. You would likely have to wait until the last piece is fetched to start streaming.
I’ve not fetched subtitles in a while but back when I did, I recall all the websites hosting them were extremely protectionist… more so than any other category of content on the web.
Of course the fix is to have torrents for the subtitle collections, perhaps by language.
It basically is saying that if you have more money then you have more “votes”.
That’s simply true. It doesn’t do anyone any good to disregard the facts.
Or to put it in another way: If you have more money you matter more.
That abstraction doesn’t help much. And first of all, it’s more accurate to derive the statement “If you have more money then you have more influence”.
It’s still a shitty status quo, but it is what it is. The worse thing you can do is tell people not to boycott shit products on the basis of rejecting reality. It’d be like telling people not to vote in elections because their vote is a drop in the ocean.
Some people vote for democrats, then they cancel their own vote by getting their internet service from Spectrum, buying fuel from Chevron for their car, shipping their packages using FedEx, getting their phone service from AT&T, banking at PNC Bank, flying on Boeing planes, shopping on Amazon, doing their web searches on a Microsoft syndicate’s site (e.g. DDG), buying Sony devices… etc. They either have no clue that most of their voting is actually for the republicans, or they think that drop-in-the-ocean vote that comes once in 4 years somehow carries more weight than the daily votes they cast with reckless disregard.
Greg Abbott’s war chest is mostly fed by oil companies. If you buy fuel for a car, you help Greg Abbott and other republicans. And if you buy from Chevron, you give the greatest support to republicans (Chevron is an ALEC member).
You might let her know that she can borrow DVDs from the public library at no cost. Another little-known gratis option is freesat and terrestrial broadcast. I recently started using MythTV as a PVR to record broadcast TV and was pleasantly surprised to find no commercial interruptions (but if there are commercials in her region, MythTV can cut them out).
I didn’t see the OP’s pic but these groups generally work against enshitification of the world:
Notice that none of those communities are on Cloudflared instances (thus also avoid propagating the enshitified portion of the fedi).
Ending capitalism is not the /only/ way. Within a capitalistic system, you can boycott shit. Most consumers are pushovers but it doesn’t have to be that way. I’m boycotting hundreds of shitty companies. Off the top of my head:
Those are all shitty companies that significantly worsen the world. Giving money or data to any of them contributes to enshitification of the world.
Of course it’s an option to stop supporting assholes. Become ethical. Be the change you want to see.
Which git repo is used to host the article doesn’t matter. That project is mirrored on ½ dozen other repos. Did you follow the links of the citations? The article is well cited but sometimes the links go stale (or become cloudflared). If you had trouble reaching the cited sources plz let me know & I’ll get the author to fix it. Or you can file a bug report in the issues tab.
The bug is most likely in the scenario of a default Cloudflare config. Cloudflare pushes a captcha to all apps other than the Tor Browser that come over Tor (in the default config). This would of course cause the #Lemmy javascript to go apeshit.
Better or worse depends on who you ask.
I boycott Cloudflare and I avoid it. Some CF hosts are configured to whitelist Tor so we don’t encounter a block screen or captcha. For me that is actually worse because I could inadvertently interact with a CF website without knowing about the CF MitM. I want to be blocked by Cloudflare because it helps me avoid those sites.
The CF onion (IIUC) cuts out the exit node which is good. But CF is still a MitM so for me that’s useless.
Some users might not care that CF has a view on all their packets - they just don’t want to be blocked. So for them the onion is a bonus.
W.r.t CSAM, CF is pro-CSAM. When a CF customer was hosting CSAM, a whistleblower informed Cloudflare. Instead of taking action against the CSAM host, CF doxxed the ID of the whistleblower to the CSAM host admin, who then published the ID details so the users would retaliate against the whistleblower. (more details)
There is no way to “disable” cloudflare if an instance has chosen to use it. It will sit between you and the server for all traffic.
Some people use CF DNS and keep the CF proxy disabled by default. They set it to only switch on the CF proxy if the load reaches an unmanageable level. This keeps the mitm off most of the time. But users who are wise to CF will still avoid the site because it still carries the risk of a spontaneous & unpredictable mitm.
wow… that is terrible. You should not have had to go on a dig for such a simple limitation. All this fancy javascript and it failed to do a simple field length check.
Ah, well if the front page is 80kb that might explain it. So apparently there’s just some really heavy text especially if each subsequent page is anywhere near 80kb.
thanks for the tip. Yes I can see that there is an attempt to load images but there is a little prohibited icon. So I’m not sure what that really means. If images are disabled in the browser settings, then I think there should not even be an attempt to fetch them. I wonder if javascript is bypassing the config and fetching the image, but then the browser is simply blocking them from display.
If the message is edited for typos/grammatical errors, then there’s really no need for a notification as the message displays the posted time in italics (e.g., ✏ 9 hours ago).
I’m not sure why the relevance of the posted time in this scenario, but indeed I agree simply that typos need not generate an update notice, in principle.
If the message is so reworked as to say something else, “Bob” (your example) should do the right thing and post a new, separate reply to “Alice” in the same thread, donchathink?
This requires Bob to care whether Alice gets the update. Bob might care more about the aesthetics, readability, and the risk that misinfo could be taken out of context if not corrected in the very same msg where the misinfo occurred. If I discover something I posted contained some misinfo, my top concern is propagation of the misinfo. If I post a reply below it saying “actually, i was wrong, … etc”, there are readers who would stop reading just short of the correction msg. Someone could also screenshot the misinfo & either deliberately or accidentally omit Bob’s correction. So it’s only sensible to correct misinfo directly where it occurred.
I get what you’re saying though, that there should be some real integrity toward post/reply history, like diff maybe.
It would be interesting to see exactly what Mastodon does… whether it has an algorithm that tries to separate typos/grammer from more substantive edits. I don’t frequently get notices on Mastodon when someone updates a status that mentions me, so I somewhat suspect it’s only for significant edits.
(update) one simple approach would be to detect when a strikethrough is added. Though it wouldn’t catch all cases.
So let me get this straight… Bob does something no one else does
Straight away you don’t have it straight. Edits happen. The mere possibility of edits in fact encourages authors to produce ½-baked drafts in the 1st place knowing that they can always edit.
edit messages on somewhere no one else goes, adding significant content to something no one sees
Not sure what drives this logic. If no one goes there, the post/comment is unlikely to happen in the 1st place. And with no interaction in the thread, refinements are even less likely. If you don’t have at least two people participating in a thread, there are no notifications to speak of.
and then Bob wants to spam the world about the update with notification?
Bob wants to take no action at all and let a smart system handle notifications as needed. So your attempt to “get this straight” got everything crooked. Furthermore, your proposed solution is moreso aligned with Bob pushing “spam”, as Bob’s new & separate msg forces a notification as the platform has no way of distinguishing an update from a new msg. Thus it would be treated like a new msg and a notice would be sent.
Also, in this context, this wouldn’t be a bug, but rather a feature request
One man’s bug is another man’s feature. Luckily bugs and feature requests are handled in the same venue so it’s a red herring.
a feature that no one is asking for
Certainly not true anymore.
and doesn’t make the software better
One man’s bug is another man’s feature.
except to those that doesn’t follow social norms yet still demands to get into others’ inboxes.
You’ve misunderstood where the demand is coming from. It’s not the author; it’s the recipient. Someone posted a useful reply to Alice, Alice read it, marked it as read, & then Bob made a useful update. Alice did not receive the notice of the update. This “demand” comes from the recipient (Alice), not Bob the author. The update was for the recipient’s benefit not the author’s. It’s purely incidental that Alice discovered that an update happened because #Lemmy was not smart enough to notify me of the update (unlike Mastodon which is quite a bit more mature).
Instead, the appropriate behaviour is to not allow Bob to make edits after sometime (which many softwares have such feature for)
That’d be fair enough, but it would not have helped in this case where the edit happened the same day.
and/or make edit logs visible (also a common feature)
You’re imposing too much manual labor on humans. Machines are here to work for us not the other way around.
such that people who doesn’t follow expected norms
The norms adapt to the software. When the software does an extra service for people, they abandon norms that attempt to compensate for a feature poor system. And rightly so.
Heh… the funny irony here is that you actually missed my update to the OP, which says:
“For comparison, note that Mastodon (at least some versions) notify you upon edits of msgs that you were previously notified on.”
That’s of course a different scenario since crossposts don’t update (which could be a separate interesting discussion). But funny nonetheless because you missed an update while saying that tools should not be improved in favor of social / cultural change. I guess you should have thought to read the OP and compare it for changes (the social solution) :)
that’s kind of how things have been since pretty much early 2000s if not earlier.
We can dispense any sort of “conventional wisdom” in the course of moving forward with improvements.
Very specifically the comment that inspired my post was someone posting misinformation, then going back and adding a s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ and highlighting their correction in red text. No correction would be more readable than that. The problem with your proposal is that misinformation is left there persistently misinforming. That can then be taken out of context (e.g. someone screensnaps the misinfo & uses it against the author). There’s also the problem that readers often do not read a whole thread top to bottom. This is proven by the number of votes (up or down), which appear in high numbers on high comments and drop dramatically after ~3 or so replies. You might argue that the post can be deleted, but that then creates a problem of responses not having context. And it creates confusion as people wonder “didn’t person X say Y?”
Are you sure it’s not just hiding the images but still loading them for layout purposes?
No, in fact this is my concern. It’s hard to know considering javascript is in the mix.
Is this mobile Firefox or desktop Firefox?
I should have been more clear-- it’s actually Tor Browser on the desktop. I said firefox to simplify, but then it occurred to me it could be relevant. Although I think the tor overhead is negligible.
I meant to say if you vote on the /comment/ you are replying to… which is apparently captured in a github bug report already.
Im glad we agree. Because its the entire point. You are nitpicking where it suits you and thats not really honest conversation.Tor browser isnt the only way to access tor
TLS is useful very specifically in the case of banking via Tor Browser, which is the most likely configuration the normal general public would use given the advice to access their bank over Tor.
There are entire swaths of the world, billions of people, where phones are basically the only gateways to the inter.
I do not recommend using a smartphone for banking. You’re asking for a huge attack surface & it’s reckless. People will do it anyway but to suggest that people should avoid Tor for banking on the basis that you’re assuming they are using a phone is terrible advice based on a poor assumption. Use Tor Browser from a PC for banking. That is the best advice for normies.
The point is, again, that Tor and specifically exit nodes are more hostile than normal ISP relays.
And again, those hostile nodes get less info than ISPs. They have to work harder to reach the level of exposure that your ISP has both technical and legal privilege to exploit.
Saying selling metatdata that is unencrypted is the same level of malicious as a nation state going after you (life and death) or having your identity or bank account stolen is clearly pretty naive.
Wow did you ever get twisted. You forgot that I excluded targeting by nation states from the threat model as you should. If someone has that in their threat model, they will know some guy in a forum saying “don’t use Tor for banking” is not on the same page, not aligned with their scenario, and not advising them. You don’t have to worry about Snowden blindly taking advice from you.
It’s naive to assume your ISP is not collecting data on you and using it against you. It’s sensible to realize the risk of a honeypot tapping your bank account and getting away with it and regulation E protections failing is unlikely enough to be negligible.
You still have to deal with getting your funds back and paying for stuff to live in the interim.
If you’re in the US, you have ~2-3 bank accounts on avg, and 20 credit cards (US averages). Not to mention the unlikeliness of an account getting MitM compromised despite TLS in the 1st place. Cyber criminals choose the easier paths, just as 3 letter agencies do: they compromise the endpoint. Attacking the middle of a tunnel is very high effort & when it’s achieved they aren’t going to waste it on some avg joe’s small-time bank acct. At best you might have some low-tech attempts that result in no padlock on the user side. But I’ve never seen that in all my years of exclusively banking over Tor.
Thats a bad assumption.
Not in the slightest. Everyone is subject to mass surveillance & surveillance capitalism.
MOST people arent really concerned with it in the western world.
Most people don’t even have a threat model, or know what it is. But if you ask them how they would like it if their ISP told their debt collector where they bank so the debt collector can go do an unannounced legal money grab, you’ll quickly realize what would be in their threat model if they knew to build one. A lot of Corona Virus economic stimulus checks were grabbed faster than debtors even noticed the money arriving on their account.
And thats not a Trump thing. its existed WAY before trump. Snowden showed that and it was Obama, not trump, that went after whistleblowers harder than any predecessor before them.
You missed the source I gave. Obama banned the practice of ISPs selling customer data without their consent. Trump reversed that. That is wholly 100% on Trump. Biden did not overturn Trump, so if you want, you can put some of the fault on Biden.
W.r.t history, echelon predates Snowden’s revelations and it was exposed to many by Nicky Hagar in the 80s or 90s. But this all a red herring because in the case at hand (banking customers accessing their acct), it’s the particular ISP role of mass surveillance that’s relevant, which Trump enabled. Or course there is plenty of other mass surveillance going on with banking, but all that is orthogonal to whether they use Tor or not. The role of Tor merely mitigates the ISP from tracking where they bank, and prevents banks from tracking where you physically are, both of which are useful protections.
Further trying to make this about “party” sides is a bad idea. Its something all parties
You can’t “both sides” this when it’s verifiable that Obama banned the practice and Trump overturned it. While Obama’s hands are dirty on a lot of things (e.g. Patriot Act continuity), it’s specifically Trump who flipped the switch to ISP overcollection. Citation needed if you don’t accept this.
And there are some areas where straight access TOR is illegal and can get you in trouble.
The general public knows your general advice to use/not use Tor is technical advice not legal advice, and also not specific to their particular jurisdiction.
Bingo. I live by this philosophy.
Although more precisely: I refuse to
fundfeed my oppressors. The reason fors/fund/feed/swap is that our oppressors profit from our data too. Just giving them data feeds them. So e.g. I won’t even email a gmail user because my data would then feed Google (an oppressor because of how they dictate e-mail terms among other oppressions).