| sureanem |
Posted on 19-02-22, 16:50 in Internet numbers bragging thread
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #21 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman 25 MB, that's about 800 KB a day. This specific thread is about 9 KB transferred. A random article from the Washington Post is about 40 KB. If you do your browsing with elinks (or wget, stallman style,) extrapolating from those two, you might be able to get a few dozens of pages a day out of it. Godspeed, man. Maybe one of the networks around you are poorly secured? 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 19-02-22, 16:56 in Terminal colour schemes
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #22 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by Screwtape base16 sounds like what you want. It supports Gnome Terminal. Posted by tomman Cygwin had (has? haven't used it in years) a terminal that could run cmd.exe and other such programs. Don't remember the name but it looked good. 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 19-02-22, 17:32 in I have yet to have never seen it all. (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #23 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman We're going backwards in airplane technology. Nobody wants to work with it now. It's intended to disappear, to get taxed to hell and get replaced by trains or whatever because of the emissions or something like that. There's no way anyone would want to touch a modern Concorde with a ten-foot pole, even if it were profitable. The goal is to decrease plane travel, so any innovation in the field that makes it more pleasant would be fought with tooth and nail, perhaps even outlawed. 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 19-02-23, 22:09 in "Firefox will block by default cross-site 3' party trackers"
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #24 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by Screwtape 5% is a huge blow, though. Remember, we're talking percentage points. Since there's no corresponding decrease in expenditures, it would cut profits by much more than by 5%. Let's take Google as an example. It deals in a lot of other stuff, sure, but I can't come up with another advertising company and it doesn't make a great difference. So let's just say for the sake of argument that all of Google's revenue is from ads. Alphabet has a yearly gross revenue of $136.8 billion. It has a yearly net income (profit) of $30.7 billion. If their gross revenue would go down by 5%, that would be a cut of $6.8 billion, or roughly 20% of profits. Assuming constant P/E, that would also imply a 20% decrease in value. Certainly a lot more than the 5% figure would appear to suggest at first, don't you think? Also, this assumes that Mozilla would be the only actor. I don't think that's true. Apple (Safari 3.8%) have been adding support for ad blockers to iOS, and I don't see what Microsoft (Edge 4.3%) or Opera (1.6%) would have to lose by adding such a feature either. Even if they wouldn't, Firefox being the only one to provide such a feature would be a unique selling point which could bolster its market share somewhat. As for the advertising industry, what could they do that they aren't already doing? Ad blocking already has a prevalence of at least 10%, and I don't see any concerted efforts to slander it or make it unusable. If they were as good at shaping public opinion as they think they are, then how come using ad blockers today isn't deeply taboo? Posted by Screwtape I don't know what you're talking about. All websites of value I can think of have next to no operating expenditures outside of hosting, and to host websites just isn't that expensive. Sure, it can get expensive if you want to use "modern technologies", but a properly optimized website generally doesn't need more than a few hundred dollars for a few million users, with the only exceptions I can think of being file hosting sites and the like. Certainly enough to pay for hosting with just donations, or in the case of smaller websites out of the owner's pocket. The reason it tends to cost much more is due to extreme incompetence, and also Parkinson's law - "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." Posted by Screwtape I still don't get it. What is all of this revenue for? Take Mozilla, for instance. What does all the money go to? The intuitive answer might be "hiring developers for Firefox". But no, that'd be wrong. Mozilla has gross revenues (2017) of $562 million, of which $539 million are royalties (e.g. default search engine). It has gross expenditures of $422 million. Of this, only $253 million is for "software development". Mozilla has "over 1,000 full-time employees worldwide". Assuming they have 1500 employees, that would be $169k per employee. How much does the Linux foundation spend on developing Linux, again? I mean, bloody hell, just read their annual report. Here are some choice quotes:
(publishing some kind of report)
(posting on facebook)
(unclear, seems to have something to do with India) Just what does all of this have to do with browsers? If they'd take the money they spend on whining about tracking, and spend it on actually doing something about it, we'd all be better off. Parkinson's law. Posted by Screwtape What does it need the money for, though? I don't see why it's a good trade-off to run more ads in your browser so you can spend $13.3 million on doing something in a foreign country you can't even explain in plain English what it is. 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 19-02-23, 22:27 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #25 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by CaptainJistuce As far as I can remember, plane tickets have been getting cheaper and cheaper. Are you talking about US domestic travel? I wouldn't know anything about that. Anyway, I'm taking about international travel. Every political party these days seems to have "sustainable development" as a core concern, and the main target of that concern is aviation (and also, automobiles and meat). Resulting in various taxes levied on plane tickets, and in general making it a stigmatized industry. Of course, in such a scenario, nobody would want to make it easier or cheaper to travel, since the goal is the opposite. The same goes for the meaningless security checks. If they'd just get rid of them and make it as frictionless as boarding a train, it would be better for everyone. But of course that would increase travel. So it would be taboo, just like going against the dogma of "we should eat less meat" would engender heavy criticism from various "experts" in the media. The goal of them isn't at this point even security theatre, it's literally to make it more uncomfortable to travel. If Western carriers were to start employing security measures similar to the Israeli carrier El Al, an airline which is forced to take security much more seriously, wait times could probably be cut by around 80% for around 80% of passengers. Why isn't this done? It would be controversial, in a way that goes against the dogma of almost every major political party, that's true, but it's not like those kinds of methods aren't already being used. The answer is of course yet again that the goal is to kill aviation, and not security or whatever other ostensible reason they come up with. 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 19-02-23, 23:35 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #26 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by jimbo1qaz I'm running Firefox (60.4.0esr) on desktop (Debian) and I don't have this issue. Maybe you could try finding the file it's located in and removing it. I ran "grep -r ticketmaster ." in the Firefox and profile directory, but I didn't find anything. Looking in the patch, I find "mobile/android/base/resources/raw/topdomains.txt". If I recall correctly, .apk files aren't compressed. So what you could do, is open the apk in 7-zip, replace the topdomains.txt file with an empty file, and remove the signature from it. Then install it unsigned. You'd have to do this for each version though. Anyhow, I don't see why you use Firefox on Android. It's utter garbage that runs at the speed of molasses and takes up several hundred megabytes of space. 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 19-02-23, 23:41 in Terminal colour schemes
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #27 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by jimbo1qaz Yup, that's it. Although it seems to have some issues: Posted by https://mintty.github.io/ (my emphasis) 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 19-02-23, 23:52 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #28 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Alexa, call the police! Smart assistants should come with a 'moral AI' to decide whether to report their owners for breaking the law, experts say Big sister is watching you? 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 19-02-24, 00:22 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #29 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by DonJon Not despite, because of. The cultural factors are important. As they say in the video, rather than focusing on the weapons that could be used for an attack, they focus on the people who could use them. And that would probably be illegal in the US. However, informally, this already does happen at Western airports. If they'd formally adopt the practices of El Al, but with a lower threat model, they could skip the security screening for those who don't belong to any risk groups. It would be trivial to first check the passport biometrics and/or government databases, and only then carry out interviews and such for those from the higher risk groups. Same with the air marshals thing. If they'd have all people in, say, risk group 5 or above travel on some planes, it would be sufficient to have air marshals and such on those. It would also serve to decrease worst-case losses and incentives for most types of airline terrorism. I don't agree with his assessment that Israeli airport security is inapplicable to the other airports in the world. Many elements of it certainly are. I mean, the IRA isn't active anymore, nor is the Red Army Faction. This is a matter of simple Bayesian statistics. If they'd just manage to sell people on it (or do it on the down-low), it would make air travel much less of a hassle for most people. But they won't, because making air travel less of a hassle for most people isn't a goal. Sigh. 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 19-02-24, 13:46 in Dear modern UXtards...
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #30 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman Do you have a source on that, my friend? Because Google sure doesn't seem to agree with you. On a more practical note, have you considered replacing her browser? Naked Browser has a rather nice UI with the menu button safely tucked away in the corner. It's also rather fast. 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 19-02-24, 15:06 in Dear modern UXtards...
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #31 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman I wouldn't say switching browsers is _completely distinct_. But I understand. That said, the developer of Naked Browser seems to be a sane guy. I mean, just take a look at the website - it's clearly made by a normal person and not a web "developer." For a short term solution, what about pirating Incoquito and disabling Internet access for it? Alternatively, "downgrading" to an older version of Chrome. 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 19-02-24, 18:33 in Dear modern UXtards... (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #32 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman You could pirate them and then disable their Internet access, along with anything else they don't need. Posted by tomman Have you taken a look at this? If you're rooted and have console, it might work. Android Studio is not very hard to use - it's geared towards the Indian "software" "developer" clientèle. But it takes insane amounts of resources. 4 GB of RAM is just barely enough if you set everything to minimum and enable swap, and I think the folder was 30 GB or something like that. Posted by tomman Bookmarks is just sliding from left edge of screen, I think. But yeah, no localization rules it out. Even with a mostly pictorial UI, "open in new tab" and such would be impossible. EDIT: Did you check out downloading an older version of Chrome? Should be freely available, and I can't see why they actually need to update 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 19-02-24, 18:52 in New Realtek website... where are the audio drivers!?? (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #33 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman No Taiwanese ever tried to install spyware on my devices. I can remember owning one Taiwanese product, a pair of Superlux headphones, which were of good quality until they broke from a batshit insane design decision. ("let's make the cable detachable but have a 5cm male sticking out from it and require an extension cord instead of putting a female directly on the headphone body so you can put an ipod directly on your headphones") Manufacturing quality was good though. Cheap and good sound, would buy again. (EDIT: Also lots of ASUS products which worked well, only way you could tell they were Taiwanese was from the odd writing style in the manual) Looking at IA, audio codecs were computer peripherals with the old website too. But man, what a piece of shit website. It almost crashed my browser, a feat which no other site but Reddit manages. 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 19-02-25, 01:12 in Internet numbers bragging thread
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #34 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman Maybe try browsh? For a news article originally 76 KB transmitted (not including assets), it manages to shrink it into 6 KB (text only, layout preserved), or 14 KB (html and colors, some semblance of images). It can run over ssh and similar, but it might not be very useful if your connection is not only poor but also intermittent. Maybe mosh and tmux would work, but you'd need a server. Posted by tomman Aren't there any poorly protected networks in the whole of Caracas? I mean, you obviously know this better than I do, but WiGLE claims about 10% of them are unprotected and another 10% have WEP. You could try building a makeshift antenna and pointing it around, see what you find. It's not optimal, but it's always a good idea to have a backup plan. 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 19-02-25, 11:32 in Internet numbers bragging thread
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #35 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman That's the whole point of browsh. It runs Firefox on the server, then renders it into text back again. So JS and everything works, even WebGL and other "technologies". You do need a remote server however if you want to log in to things, since the public demo (understandably) blocks form elements. Slashdot seems to work fine. Posted by tomman My mistake, I thought you lived in Caracas. You sure you couldn't pick up the network from the public plaza with a purpose-built directional antenna? If you have a computer with ethernet port and wireless network card, you could feed that into your router (e.g. use it as a repeater) and still be able to use router-powered adblock. 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 19-02-25, 13:42 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #36 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by creaothceann Works fine here. 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 19-02-25, 13:55 in Internet numbers bragging thread
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #37 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman Is this with a directional antenna? Posted by tomman Recent versions of Windows and Android both add a tiny exclamation mark to the icon to show that it doesn't have Internet access. It doesn't seem to help though. How can the router be broken if there's Internet? 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 19-02-25, 15:56 in Mozilla, *sigh*
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #38 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by creaothceann What does the work PC run? If it runs Arch or something like that it's possible you've messed up the font rendering. I remember it was lots of trouble to get it to work, manual configuration and installing packages and stuff. Also, is it only on that website+browser combination? 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 19-02-26, 16:46 in Internet numbers bragging thread
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #39 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by tomman Cantennas are homemade, so I would hardly call them 'fancy tech'. You do need something to receive the signal though, which might be hard. Some routers support running in "repeater mode", and that ought to work, if you have such a router. As for the reach, antenna gain works both ways. If you manage to focus your signal into a narrower cone, this affects both transmission and reception. It's probably not worth going through all the trouble just to read news, though. Posted by tomman I hate to tell you, but this is hardly unique to third world countries... 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 19-02-26, 19:34 in Internet numbers bragging thread (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #40 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1547 days Last view: 1545 days |
Posted by DonJon I'm no expert, but I believe the main concern is weapons hidden in the shipments, like in Nicaragua in the 1980s. (Iran-Contras affair) The Atlantic: When Humanitarian Aid Is Used as a Weapon to Bring Down Regimes Russian News Agency TASS: US plans to buy weapons for Venezuelan opposition in Eastern Europe, warns diplomat 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. |
