In some parts of the internet you can't mention a pirate site (or left wing stuff, anything sexual, or Palestine) without being banned. HN isn't one of them, but people have learned to be overly cautious.
I literally had never heard of this before. I don't check HN every single day.
It's extremely reasonable to ask for a link, very easy to include one when making a claim, and attacking someone for asking for evidence is extremely anti-intellectual independent of the level of effort required.
(n.b. that doesn't excuse the hostile way that they asked for proof - "Let's all just believe this baseless assertion shall we")
They were pointing out the lack of evidence on my part. I agree it was rude but I don't think it's helpful to start calling it misinformation with no evidence. They had a valid point that not everybody Just Knows already, hence why I did reply with a link. I don't think it's constructive to jab much more than I did in that reply.
Correct:Also, archive.* has actively edited archived sites to promote their agenda. Why folks continue to use them confuses me. One would think the big wikipedia purge would curb such behavior.
They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.
Just out of curiosity, how do we know that what is in the Wikipedia comments is accurate? I have no skin in the game. I was just wondering. Anybody can post anything on Wikipedia comments. I find it odd that Ars Technica would use that as a source. Maybe it's fine for gossip and speculation but it shouldn't be in Ars Technica then.
And you obviously have no reason to believe me, but I was following this when it was happening at the start of this year and can confirm that the DDoS script and archive text replacements really did happen.
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.
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
Yes, arguably, and for reasons I already gave. I’d genuinely spend a bit more time reading and thinking rather than replying. Your replies are pithy but you’re missing details and frankly making cognitive mistakes. (Apologies if this seems harsh, I don’t mean it as an insult, but this thread has blown up entirely unnecessarily- and yes, I know I’m not helping either!)
It is different, precisely because the end result is not the same - one broadly benefits the public while the other doesn't.
Substitute almost any disruptive public service to see the issue with your line of reasoning. For example - you seem to think that [ bulldozing private property ] to "construct an emergency fire break" is somehow different than [ bulldozing private property ] for any other reason.
Never mind that the sort of scraping being objected to is actually harmful to service health while what the wayback machine does is almost entirely unnoticeable.
The minuscule traffic generated by the wayback machine, which serves to preserve the content for years to come, is completely incomparable to the scrapers that hammer every single href linked on a website.
I'm guessing you use search engines, right? Those use scrapers and have to use scrapers. It's how they work.
A "scraper" is simply an automated process that fetches URLs intended for display to a human, and processes it. The act of scraping doesn't imply anything about:
1. The frequency of the fetches,
2. The way that the resulting page is processed.
Search engines scrape. Again, they have to. Same goes for archive.org.
Thing is, there aren't tens of thousands of search engines/archive.orgs that can overload a site at once.
Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.
Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.
No they don't. Archive.org is co-operative, it respects robots.txt and allows deletion. It's also very slow. Archive.* is adversarial and archives sites that don't like it. That's why the FBI is trying to take it down.
They are 2 different services, run by different people, one goes out of their way to bypass paywalls while the other doesn't, one is banned by Wikipedia and the other isn't, etc.
I think it's a distinction worth making.
Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.
Yeah, you're mistaken. One archives web pages, the other maintains a list of paid-access accounts and fetches information from behind paywalls as a service.
archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner.
Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result.
It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.
For good reason. Last time I checked (this year), Alyx crashes Mesa (i.e. your Vulkan layer) when the player enters an in-game load zone. This happens with native linux and the proton windows version.
It doesn't just crash Mesa but freeze the entire GPU last I tried. Kinda surprised that Valve has cared so little to fix this considering how much effort they have been putting in those drivers and into the game in the first place.
Doesn't wearing a headset in public have antisocial "Glasshole" vibes?
Honestly, people who cowork in public already give me the ick. Maybe immersing yourself in a headset is just a physical manifestation of the digital immersion that is already plaguing public spaces.
Im not too familiar with the term Glasshole, but on long dark plane rides, if I want to use my laptop I feel like a lighthouse, even with lowest screen brightness. If I look like a dork with it on while doing some light gaming or movie watching, that is an OK price to pay to not disturb others around me. But if you are talking about just general out in public, then it absolutely gives dorky vibes. On the train, or in a coffee shop or something, a laptop just looks much less conspicuous.
Is the Glasshole thing more geared towards recording people in public? This headset has 1. bad cameras but 2. a much better privacy posture than meta.
The Glasshole thing comes from when Google Glasses were new (sort of the ancestor to the modern Meta pervert glasses). When you saw someone wearing Google Glasses, you could see the camera pointed at you and that the screen was on and doing stuff. It made a lot of people uncomfortable.
The “glasshole” vibe wasn’t antisocial; it was an understandably human reaction to the fact that you couldn’t tell whether the wearer (and/or google) was surveilling or recording you any time they so much as glanced in your direction in public.
I don't really get the ick about wearing these kinds of things in public, but, having tried to wear XR glasses in public has shown me that the bigger issue is that these things are at a whole other level of distracting compared even to phones. It'd probably be worse with a full face headset, since at least with glasses you have your full field of view.
Even despite pinning the display in a corner, I noticed I was very distracted when crossing streets. Made me stop wearing them like that, instead prefering to carry them in my backpack and use them on train rides or flights.
At least with my phone I can just slip it back in my pocket when I need to pay attention to my surroundings.
I don't think using a display when walking around is a good idea or even just safe to do. On the other hand, I think it makes perfect sense to have something a like a fighter jet HUD - important information in static places (time/location/notification status/etc.) with possibly some highlights (showing where is the next bus in AR, annotating things when you look at them, seamless translation of text, etc.).
Yeah, I used to think that it'd be fine if the content was pinned off screen but turns out it's worse because I find myself looking away from where I'm walking.
What's icky about taking a laptop down to the park and getting some work done while surrounded by nature?
Although, I do agree, I would find it odd to go down to the park and see someone wandering around with a VR headset tuning out the world and waving controllers around. I'm more addressing the "cowork in public spaces" part of that. I think their statement about "while traveling" is more like while seated on a several hour plane trip or relaxing at a hotel or things along those lines. Not like wearing the device while ordering a latte or something along those lines.
Copyright has been broken for decades. Disney famously lobbied to pervert it for a century longer than reasonable. (Hence, the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.) I'm honestly amazed we finally have new entrants to the public domain again.
We absolutely need reform, but it seems difficult (nearly insurmountable) when we have an ineffectual congress and highly effective lobbyists.
The aspect ratio is the biggest problem with foldables.
The main reason I'd want a bigger display is for more immersive content like videos, which are typically 16:9. On a Pixel Fold, you have all the added complexity of the fold to make the videos you watch on the train 1cm taller.
The iPhone Duo unfolds to be the same height as the iPhone Pro Max. Sounds like it has the exact same problem - a bunch of added complexity without a practical use for it.
-----
> Touch ID is integrated into the side button
Another major flaw with the foldable form factor - it's hard to distinguish holding the device e.g. to pocket it and holding the device to use it. My foldable does the smartphone equivalent of butt-dialing way more often than any phone I've had before because it likes to unlock itself when I'm putting it in my pocket
For media consumption on the go, I use AR glasses. They are considerably cheaper than the upgrade from an 18Pro to a Duo, and give you an absolutely giant screen.
Which AR glasses? I'm looking more for a travel MacBook virtual display that doesn't weigh so much as the Vision Pro. I would gladly trade away most of the Vision Pro features, but I'm also a huge snob about pixel density so remains to be seen if I can tolerate alternatives.
I bought them to code more effectively on my laptop at my then girlfriend (now wife)'s house. The display was too pixely and distracting for me to code on. However, its plenty good enough for videos.
For videos I mostly use it with my phone (16 pro). Some apps are great (Netflix, AppleTV) and are smart enough to turn off the iPhone screen. Others (VLC, HBO) leave the screen on and burn battery at 2x-3x the rate of AppleTV or Netflix. I can watch AppleTV or Netflix on a coast-to-coast flight an still have plenty of battery left over. With HBO I use probably 20% battery per hour.
iPads have the same issue (to a lesser extent) if you're really looking for a device primarily for fullscreen 16:9 video. To be honest, the iPhone Duo (and iPads) are much more suited for multiple tiled apps and multi-column app layouts than they are for fullscreen 16:9 video.
It's my primary role. I started using jsxstyle a dozen years ago alongside React and really liked the ability to style my components in situ without breaking browser architecture assumptions.
I recently had to help out on a vibe coded project that inherited Tailwind (I think from Figma). It was a short assignment so I didn't dig that deep, but I don't understand the value prop of Tailwind. There was no obvious improvement over what I've been used to; in fact, it seemed a lot messier.
A lot of the time the choice comes down to abundance of resources and community support. So if we're comparing tools (e.g. jsxstyle vs tailwind) maybe Tailwind could actually win on those parameters (no actual idea, just guessing based on the number of stars jsxstyle has on Github), but if we're comparing vanilla to [any tool] then vanilla usually takes the cake.
If I was using React, I'd probably like this tool too. The best counter to "community supported" is "so conceptually simple and small that it doesn't need a community". But perhaps that's kind why I'm not big on React in general.
My Legion Go came with a free Game Pass trial. I spent 20 minutes playing No Man's Sky in VR and liked it, bought it on Steam, but haven't actually played it yet.
Maybe this is the nudge to move it higher in my queue.
reply