Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-07, 13:57 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #241 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by tomman No, it's just an advanced kind of fraud in which they pretend to have reformed. They realized it was more profitable to sell subscriptions than OEM licenses, that's all. Linux is the last vestige of freedom on the desktop, so of course it has to be destroyed. How it begins is trivial: students at universities realize they don't need to bother with installing Linux when they've already got WSL to run their programming stuff and whatever, then this becomes an official recommendation by the university, then big companies start doing it too (less maintenance burden). Then, in the reverse order, the "special spice" can be added. First for large corporations, who won't mind it. Then for schools, who'll welcome the speed increase. Then for students, who just copy-paste the first working line of code from SO. Remember that they already did this with Visual Studio. To use good ol' strcpy or strncpy, you need to enable a very ugly preprocessor directive, and else you'll have to use the "secure" (read: Microsoft-only) versions "strcpy_s" and "strncpy_s", which just so happen to be incompatible with the regular functions. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-07, 14:03 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #242 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by tomman It doesn't have to use 100% of CPU. At 25%, it would be far less noticeable. It could also use WebGL, which would be both less bothersome and more effective. It's worse than ads, yes, but it's the only serious alternative to them I've seen other than micropayments (an alternative, at least) or running websites for free. I do however think the last one is seriously underrated. Often you hear of websites which need to run ads/get donations to pay hosting bills, but by just reconfiguring their software they could severely reduce said hosting bills. (see: tvtropes, 8chan) What would you suggest for a website that has actual expenses? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-07, 16:10 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #243 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by Kawa Those aren't what I mean. If they're not for profit, they're arguably editorial content. Same as imageboards' banners for other boards (subforums) on the same website, which aren't even blocked by ad blockers. (Unlike the ones on this board, oddly enough - I'd think it has to do with the URL rather than a manual block) Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely, the expenses of hosting a forum which receives a handful of posts a day can't be staggering? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-07, 16:19 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #244 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
No man, you're the only Slashdot user here. Never browsed it, although the comments seem much more sane than on most other tech websites. >Javascript killed Visual Studio, and evne those forced to use C and friends (outside boring line-of-business intranet applications) moved to GCC or LLVM/Clang. A failed attempt is still an attempt. It's not as if Microsoft took MinGW under their arms, is it? >I'm glad noone took Visual Studio seriously over here (aside of VB6 kids, which SOMEHOW still survive to this date), on our colleges all we got was Java (which comes with its own bag of hurt because Orrible®) or PHP (which is one hundred times worse than anything out there). Dunno what they use these days, I wouldn't be surprised if the Javascript disease has infected our university curriculum too. Visual Studio is a decent IDE, at least for C#. Although I'd doubt it's used for writing C/C++ on a large scale, except for some really odd people you sometimes see on GitHub. (seriously, what the fuck?!) There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-07, 16:35 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #245 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by tomman But going offline isn't a solution to the problem of "continuing the website," it only solves the lesser problem "not going bankrupt". Soliciting advertisers yourself is bloody hard, as The Pirate Bay learned. It would be the ideal, yes, but it has significant administrative costs and carries with it a much greater intimacy than just advertising through AdSense. For instance, if my brand of, say, flour would advertise in, say, the National Review through AdSense, that wouldn't be odd. But if it'd have a direct relationship with them, then it gets a strong association as an "American conservative" flour brand. This might be good or bad, but it's hardly the same thing. Likewise, odd AdSense ads won't tarnish your website's reputation, but odd direct advertisers will. So it's only even an option for a very specific set of websites. For the really controversial websites that nobody would like to touch with a ten-foot pole, you can only really get porn/Russian mail order bride/FREE DRIVER DOWNLOAD NOW ads, if even that. CRYPTOJUNK IS NOT REAL MONEY. It can be exchanged for real money transparently, so it doesn't make any difference to the proprietor. There is no admissible CPU load AT ALL, hence I will be closing that browser tab to never come back as long as I notice the CPU load (and since not everybody browses from a top-of-the-line i9/Ryzen, I'll notice it, oh yeah). It can be tailored to use 25% of YOUR CPU, if you want. I don't know what the option is here. Ads, too, require CPU. Web pages are for displaying information, while allowing to a limited degree of interaction, not for pushing client-side workloads (use a native application for that if you must!), much less for burning my precious CPU cycles on buttcoins. Couldn't the same thing be said for ads? "Web pages are for displaying information, while allowing to a limited degree of interaction, not for pushing other people's messages (use the newspaper for that if you must!), much less for wasting my precious eyeballs on crap I don't want to buy." I'll take the chance to inform you guys that my personal site is going offline on May 28th (that is, 3 weeks from now on): I've just got the yearly bill from my hosting, and instead of just being "expensive, but I can stomach it just like I've done in the last 3 years because it's not THAT bad" to "severe jab to the liver". I haven't served a SINGLE AD since 2001, I have never profited from having an online presence. Hell, I don't even track my users (outside of the heavily outdated statistics PHP junk I had installed in 2007 or so, which doesn't even recognize Webkit-based browsers at all, and only recognizes Firefox because I hacked the script in 2008). RIP Is everything in archive.org? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-07, 17:48 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #246 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/us/politics/china-hacking-cyber.htmlChinese Spies Got the N.S.A.’s Hacking Tools lost control of key parts of its cybersecurity arsenal. the Chinese did not steal the code but captured it from an N.S.A. attack on their own computers — like a gunslinger who grabs an enemy’s rifle and starts blasting away. proliferating cyberconflict is creating a digital wild West with few rules or certainties cyberweapons cyberweapons cyberweapons cyberweapons cyberweapons their own tools will boomerang back Why are they letting boomers write about the cyber? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-07, 22:06 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #247 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
No, like baby boomers. Who else would use the phrase "cybersecurity arsenal"? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-08, 14:23 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #248 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by CaptainJistuce   Don't look very millennial (l 1954–, r 1960–) or retired to me. The fellow on the right does however look like the exact kind of person who would use the phrase "cybersecurity arsenal". I don't know what it is, but there is a distinctive aura, don't you think? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-08, 15:07 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #249 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by tomman Yes, for extremely high values of "popular". A semi-obscure website that still gets a few dozen thousand views a month would net you a few dozen dollars a month, which might be the difference between making a slight profit and shelling out $100/mo for hosting, assuming it's some resource-intensive stuff. If you run one of said "controversial sites" (politics, Nazi/KKK/Taliban shit, Poetteringware™, etc.), no sane advertiser will want to touch it, but I'm pretty much sure their target will find a way to support their site. Just not involving buttcoins or PayPal buttons you can't use anyway, since historically there have been other ways to do so. Lots of politics websites can and do run ads though, as long as they're reasonably centrist. How would they earn money without ads/donations/crypto mining? Paywalls? The only thing I can think of is captchas or renting it out for DoS attacks, but those are strongly unethical and poorly paid. "People not wanting to pay for things" are a completely different problem, and advertising/cryptojunk won't solve that - it's a SOCIAL problem product of the inherent selfishness built into the human being. "Adware" is just a consequence of that fact - at a first look ads aren't evil (if you aren't interested, just scroll down), but the "Big Data" era perverted the concept down to the bone, and advertising is now considered an evil greater than wars and communism. Advertising DOES solve it plenty fine for most use cases, and so does crypto mining, arguably. Tracking, as regrettable as it is, is needed to get it profitable. Otherwise you'd just be shooting in the dark. Even if it's horribly inefficient, it is orders of magnitude more precise than just sending them out at random. And for this reason, niche websites get a higher CPM.
To be blunt, your impressions aren't worth very much. If we assume that CPM scales linearly with GDP/capita, it would mean the average Venezuelan click is worth about 4% of an American one. So cutting off the lower end isn't very bad for business. It's regrettable, yes, but I wouldn't say they're shooting themselves in the foot. CRYPTOJUNK IS NOT REAL MONEY. I don't think I could exchange Enron shares or tulips for money anymore. But at the time I could, and I don't see what'd be wrong getting paid in them. It's kind of awkward to deal with, sure, but (inconvenient) money is still money. In particular, I don't get your ire against crypto. People are buying bitcoins for VES, so wouldn't it be a good way to make money? Even if you remain steadfast in the conviction that it's outright fraud, it should be extremely profitable. It would be trivial to make a crypto mining provider that paid out each month in your bank account, and that's all that matters. If someone else is willing to buy it, it's not immoral to sell it, provided it's not a negative externality unto itself. Many websites can't take wire transfers/credit cards, so their only option is crypto (for both receiving and paying expenses). What about them? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-08, 16:00 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #250 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by tomman Don't make no difference to me.
Yes, that's true. I'm not going to criticize you for not engaging in unethical actions, but I would think that moral standards fly out the window if one is starving. And arguably cryptocurrency speculation is more moral than outright theft at gunpoint; at least the speculators know what they're getting into. I'd reckon most people who buy/sell cryptocurrencies for a living don't work their underlying exposure to the commodity into it - they don't own any more or less bitcoins just because they sold or bought some as part of a business transaction, since that'll just get reflected in the transactions they make to their exchange to have enough of each on hand. Sorry but no. Those Venezuelans "buying" into the cryptocraze are nothing but a tiny TINY minority that are well aware they're walking on quicksands (but anyone over here is so desperate to eat they're willing to do whatever weird/shady acts they can, as long as they can eat, damned be the consequences later). I can't believe I have to say this again, but I've met people that actually have dealt with cryptojunk. Close friends of mine, even! They all left the business after making a tiny profit because it's too volatile and too shady to become a full-time job. And then you have the commies that are trying to use cryptojunk as the vehicle to commit outright fraud legally. Hey, I heard the local crypto authority (yes, what a fine waste of our national budget: backing smelly buttcoins that not even scammers want) is hiring, why not apply there?! Yes, and this is for speculation. But you could get a job, paid in bitcoin, and then immediately cash out the money as soon as it hits your wallet. Even if it's unstable, it's probably not going to crash within the span of an hour. I'm not suggesting you invest in Bitcoin, which would arguably be a bad idea. But for transferring money, it seems like it would be perfect. I see other people from Venezuela talking about Bitcoin (again, for the transfer of value, not store of it), and they seem to be able to sell it fine. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-08, 16:46 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #251 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
See, this is what happens when you program in languages without #define statements. On a more serious note, it doesn't sound like a problem in practice: the application needs to compile agains an interface-only API jar in the original javax namespace, which must not get produced due to Oracle’s trademark restrictions. So they take the renamed API, rename it back to javax, produce the trademark-violating jar, and go on with their day. Everyone's happy. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-08, 20:31 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #252 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by tomman Because that pertained to the first stuff I wrote, which wasn't serious. If you're okay with recompiling, isn't it fine though? I've used #define extensively while writing C for various more or less pure uses, and never ran into any trouble. For something quick like changing an API it should be golden. But I've never used Java, so I freely admit I could just be talking nonsense here. But the (serious) suggestion about just violating their trademarks and making the damn jar already, shouldn't that be free of all those issues since it's in the same namespace and everything? if there is a controlling entity with a vested interest into ensuring that things never change for good so they can extort you. That's what you get for picking software with a... Nope, not gonna say it. This could very well happen to C (in practice) as well, all you'd need is for a glibc maintainer to pull a Mozilla. Yes, it could be fixed by recompilation, but then we're back to square one again. Java has a bad rep, but MOST of it is thanks to Oracle, not due to its flaws/quirks as a language/platform. Huh, I always thought it was because a certain type of people ("kindly do the needful", as well as the fresh out of college crew) liked to program in it. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-08, 20:37 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #253 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by Kawa You are mistaken, I believe it was about ads and how a website could fund itself without one of * tracking ads * cryptocurrency mining * incredibly unethical and probably illegal means * extremely large volumes of traffic and non-tracking ads * an extremely specific and lucrative niche (e.g. zerohedge) But yeah, back to the topic. As we all know, here at the BBoard we take our thread topics incredibly seriously. Posted by tomman Doesn't everyone? (see: American politics, British politics, smartphones, cell service providers, ISPs, CPU manufacturers, semiconductor fabrication in general, social media, TLDs) I'm sure you could add many more examples. There's no other solution. As much as you could want to develop another browser, it would just be prohibitively expensive. We've been through this, we're talking thousands of pages of specifications, plus whatever non-standard hacks the major browser makers implement (e.g. to "parse" horribly broken "HTML"), plus whatever websites do to break browsers they don't like. And all this to absolutely no end, when you could just grab someone else's engine and be done with it. There's a grand total of one dude in Russia doing it, plus the Servo people, plus various Chromium/Firefox forks. In other words, There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-09, 13:56 in Anticipating near future [politics]
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #254 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Won't happen. His advisors (e.g. Bolton and friends) are pushing for it, but he'd have done it by now if he wanted to. He might at least give the West a (just) trade war against the Chinese, but probably, as always, nothing will happen. If he actually wants to do interventionism, I reckon he'd do Venezuela first as a low-commitment test run (e.g. Grenada) to drum up support for foreign intervention after the previous debacles, and then Iran because he thinks they'll go easy on him, which might be true. But I wouldn't think anything happens. It would probably be a good thing if it did, though. Although US/China+vassals is a far better split than US+Israel+Saudi/Iran+Russia+vassals. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-09, 14:01 in Board feature requests/suggestions (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #255 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Page rendered in 1.067 seconds with 20 MySQL queries. Is your board doing okay? EDIT: Page rendered in 8.076 seconds with 27 MySQL queries. Page rendered in 1.192 seconds with 15 MySQL queries. "Last posts" is ~5 ms, short threads the same, but longer threads appear to load far slower. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-09, 16:29 in Mozilla, *sigh* (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #256 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Interesting article about banner ads' effect on traffic. Spoiler: they make quite a difference. Also, there's this part about Firefox: Almost simultaneously with Pandora, Mozilla (Miroglio et al 2018) conducted a longitudinal (but non-randomized, using propensity scoring+regression) study of browser users which found that after installing adblock, the subset of adblock users experienced “increases in both active time spent in the browser (+28% over [matched] controls) and the number of pages viewed (+15% over control)”. One could guess what it would do to their market share if AdBlock were to become standard. But no, they have to protect Their Benefactors. Got to get that $$$ for the side projects. And can't do anything morally dubious, even it it ultimately means the death of the web. And so it goes. Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened, I suppose. But it's shocking that they have the actual, hard numbers and still are too cowardly to do anything. I suppose you could make the argument that they had it coming, which would definitely be true, but it's still regrettable for everyone else. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-09, 16:39 in Board feature requests/suggestions
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #257 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
It's often but not always close to a whole number of seconds (in this tab here: "Page rendered in 0.943 seconds with 21 MySQL queries."). There was an issue very similar to this that someone was having with SQLite, it was sleeping a whole second to try and resolve some conflict. Could this be the case here? Although sometimes I get other times, like 0.138, 0.558, or 0.555. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-10, 13:10 in Board feature requests/suggestions
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #258 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by jimbo1qaz Only the threads have the load time issue, in particular longer threads. I think it goes into (database-level) cache if you refresh a few times, which causes the page load time to become normal again. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-10, 16:42 in Board feature requests/suggestions
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #259 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Yeah, it's only the threads. I did some testing, where I requested random POST IDs (?pid=) and wrote down the load time:It seems like there's a split, between load times <2s and >3s (no load times between 2-3s). Those above 3s appear to have a slight correlation to post ID. So speculating wildly, it could be doing a linear scan for those. Although it doesn't explain why it's so close to whole seconds. If I do it with ?id=X: Normal load times. Does the database have an index on post ID? If not, that could be it. It doesn't seem like the other boards on this domain have the same issue, and I'm assuming the code is very similar. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-05-10, 17:12 in Anticipating near future [politics]
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #260 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by Vladiskovwashere That's because there's only ever two positions to take on any issue, publicly. Anything else is a waste. For instance, if you think that feminism has gone a bit too far, the reasonable position to take would be the furthest right position on that issue that you think you could reasonably advocate for. Not actually, "feminism has gone too far". If you did take that position, then the end result would end up somewhere in-between your position and the status quo. Which is why you end up with people supporting all kinds of extreme positions they don't believe in. Same goes for the other side, obviously. If you think men earn a bit too much money, then the reasonable position isn't "we should look into this disparity in salary and its potential causes", because then all you'd end up with is lip service. Obviously, the "furthest position you could reasonably advocate for" varies. So for a political party, it's whatever's (in Europe) above the electoral threshold, or (in America) just uncontroversial enough to win a primary. And in Internet discussion, printing pamphlets, etc, it's whatever doesn't get you killed/thrown in jail/alienated from the audience. And the last one isn't set in stone, of course. Even if people find it a disgusting and abhorrent view, they'd still adapt to it as the new norm for that side. So even if nobody agrees with it, it could still end up being useful. And for people who genuinely believe in their cause, getting killed/thrown in jail shouldn't be a big concern. If you analyze elections from this point of view, it becomes much quicker and easier to vote, too. Because there is only ever one dimension in politics (left-liberal and right-authoritarian), all you need to do is to follow this simple process: 1. Am I left or right of the status quo? 2. What is the furthest electable [answer to step 1] option? So for instance, if you lived in Greece, there wouldn't ever be any point to voting for anything but the Communist Party of Greece or Golden Dawn. If things get too [left|right]-wing for your tastes, you just vote for the other side. This means that you can skip watching the debates, reading manifestos, etc, since it will take about five seconds to find out which one is furthest left/right. It's not that one has to actually support any of these parties, but that it's in one's best interests to give support to that party. This (in addition to basic human nature) is why the only sides on any issue you hear about on the Internet are along the lines of either "refugees welcome - bring your families," or "gas the kikes, race war now". And likewise, why you only ever should argue those kinds of positions unless there are consequences to doing so. (just to clarify here, lest I get banned: I don't wish to imply that I necessarily hold one of these positions, but only that it's pointless to take meek centrist positions, even on issues you don't really care about) There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
