Yes, I have no clue how she felt about the article from 2000, and obviously reading it with a 2024 lens is not fair to the original author. I am happy for her that the obituary didn’t deadname her like the original article did, and hope that she would have been ok with the pronouns used the way they did pre/post transition.
You’re right, very weird use of pronouns in the obituary. I can only imagine that most of it was lifted from the article from 2000. That doesn’t excuse misgendering someone, they could have updated it for 2024.
Does Microsoft’s GitHub offer any pre-receive hook configuration to reject commits pushed that contain private keys? Surely that would be a better feature to opt all users into rather than Windows Copilot.
Unless it’s literally no effort to maintain extensions that use both, a large portion of maintainers will develop what has the largest market share. Sure for uBlock Origin, there’s enough momentum to maintain a v2 version for Firefox, but for a new extension with one developer, it’s unlikely that they’d make two versions.
Either this backfires, and Firefox ends up having the better extensions using v2 manifest, or new extensions will be developed with the limitations of v3 and Firefox users will have an unnecessarily neutered experience as Chrome users.
I’m definitely never logging in to a Google service while using Firefox.
Could you elaborate on this? Why not use Firefox for logging into Gmail, Youtube, etc
Why use JustWatch.com when you can follow this guide to know where to watch King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962)
Exactly, with Nintendo’s existing IP and old gamers dying, they need a way to get younger generation exposed to what kids in the 80s and 90s grew up with and make sure that it’s plastered on all the streaming websites to get maximum exposure.
What’s wrong with Authy?
No need to guess, it’s all outlined in the bill:
So basically, the law will impose a fine of US hosting providers of the app. If the app moves all services overseas to foreign entities, then the app presumably will continue to work even if banned if already installed (plus the website if hosted overseas).
ISPs and search engines are explicitly exempt from the bill so there is no mechanism to ban connections to TilTok servers or links to TikTok.
Say what you will about Apple, they are masters of spinning their shortcomings as groundbreaking achievements. When they refused to unlock the iPhone of the san bernardino terrorist attack, it was framed as an act of preserving user privacy, but brushed over how willing they were to hand over the iCloud backups if the police would have brought the iPhone to a known WiFi network for the backup to be uploaded.
No need to guess, it’s all outlined in the bill:
So basically, the law will not require ISPs to block access to TikTok domains and IP addresses. Google search results are also explicitly excluded from the term data broker, and exempt from the restrictions. The only requirement is for app stores to stop hosting the application, so existing installations of the app (after January 2025 assuming ByteDance doesn’t sell) will presumably persist and can be used, even if TikTok is banned.
Right they define internet hosting service as:
(5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.—The term “internet hosting service” means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.
So this would prevent a US organization like AWS, Oracle, etc from hosting the TikTok user data as long as TikTok is owned or a subsidiary of ByteDance or another “foreign adversary”.
Elsewhere in the text, they exclude “service providers” from restrictions, so it seems like ISPs are not going to block requests to TikTok.
Does is specify ISP blocking directly in the bill?? It was my understanding that it would just prevent US based app stores (Apple, Google) from distributing the app in their stores.
I’m not even sure how ISP blocking would work, unless it was to just blackhole DNS queries to tiktok.com. Having attempted to block DNS lookups for TikTok on my own home router via PiHole, I can say that the app either hard codes IP addresses, or resolves DNS over HTTPS independently of the system DNS settings, so I doubt a DNS based ISP block would be feasible.
Seriously, going through these comments, it’s clear most people didn’t read the article or didn’t learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).
Based on the timeline, it’s clear the intention wasn’t to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.
Not who you were replying to, and not an interview, but here’s an NPR article that explains that the content-recommendation algorithms would be difficult to sell
Chinese officials have placed content-recommendation algorithms on what is known as an export-control list, meaning the government has additional say over how the technology is ever sold.
If ByteDance doesn’t divest of TikTok 9 months, then it will be blocked from being distributed from App Stores. Nothing will be blocked before the election, so it’s not really something which will affect the typical voter who isn’t following the news, causing them to change their vote.
What happened on July 10th, 2023?
If you wrap the TV in tinfoil, it’ll be a faraday cage and block all WiFi
Usually NYT sets a cookie to track how many free articles you read and once you exceed that, you get the paywall. The bots probably don’t set/send the cookies, so NYT doesn’t block them. Also, I’d imagine the bots are coming from various different IPs so even server side blocking based on IP wouldn’t block everything and eventually the bot would get to the article. User Agents can also be spoofed.