Regardless, as I said in my comment, I only mentioned the Unix model "for example" - not to "shift the goalposts", just because I'm more familiar with it than with whatever anti-binary-tampering measures Windows may have.
1,298 karma · joined March 27, 2012
Regardless, as I said in my comment, I only mentioned the Unix model "for example" - not to "shift the goalposts", just because I'm more familiar with it than with whatever anti-binary-tampering measures Windows may have.
Under the Unix security model, for example, that would be pretty likely: your profile's owned by your account, the executable & its containing folder are owned by root & go-w, so code running as you can tamper with the former but not the latter.
That being said, even if a speedy review process isn't required de jure, market forces should make it a de facto requirement. Over time, a platform with overzealous takedowns & inadequate appeals process will lose out to any competition which does better on either front.
(Yes, I know it hasn't worked out like that with YouTube. They're close enough to a monopoly that market forces don't really apply, and that's a whole other problem.)
Its decisions were overruled by humans. That's not "supreme power".
In effect, some uploads were pre-moderated instead of retromodded. There's nothing novel about pre-moderation, some sites apply it to all user content - if you don't have a problem with that, I don't see how it's consistent to take exception to this.
> A separate request Quartz made to reinstate its own versions of the document was resolved 17 minutes after we sent it, seemingly after an employee review.
I... don't see the problem here? Sure, it'd be better if their detector never got it wrong, but in the absence of the Sufficiently Advanced Technology that would require, a speedy manual review process is the best anyone's got.
Not quite the same thing as you describe, but it's exploring a similar part of the design space:
https://academic.oup.com/bjaed/article/14/4/153/293533 (2013)
the exact mechanism of action of paracetamol [ie acetamophen] remains to be determined. There is evidence for a number of central mechanisms, including effects on prostaglandin production, and on serotonergic, opioid, nitric oxide (NO), and cannabinoid pathways, and it is likely that a combination of interrelated pathways are in fact involved.
That's the most widely-used analgesic in the world, and its mechanism is evidently neither simple nor well-understood.
Not that I know off-hand of any sites that actually do that, but the possibility exists.
I think it near-certain that YouTube is both. Considering the obvious value of getting your video into as many people's recommendation streams as possible, there's surely a whole "SEO, but for YouTube" industry out there, working furiously to game the system.
Anecdotally (albeit not "an industry" per se), on a number of occasions I've observed... let's call them "radical activist groups", organising off-YouTube to flood a favoured video or channel with activity, with the explicit goal of causing YouTube to make it more visible to "the masses".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18824923
The big idea is for people to publish cryptographically signed "proofs" that they've reviewed a particular version of a given module, allowing a web-of-trust structure for decentralised code review. I particularly like how, thanks to the signatures, a module's author can distribute reviews alongside the module without compromising their trustworthiness - so there's an incentive for authors to actively seek out reviewers to scrutinise their code.
##html[amp] body,html[\26A1] body:style(animation:none!important)
(I can't test it in my current browser, unfortunately, but I think that's right.)[edit]
Update: I got to a browser I could test it on. Unfortunately, it turns out uBO doesn't let you apply :style() rules to all pages indiscriminately, you have to specify a domain name pattern - which is pretty annoying, because the principle is evidently sound; this does work on the link in OP:
ehow.co.uk##html[amp] body,html[\26A1] body:style(animation:none!important)
Hrmph.Alternatively, you could use a CSS injection addon (or userContent.css, in Firefox) to add the rule to all pages:
html[amp] body, html[\26A1] body {
animation: none !important;
}
Or do it with a userscript (ie via Greasemonkey or similar).[edit 2]
It appears uBO is aware of a need for something like this - they provide an injectable "scriptlet" that adds the necessary CSS: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Resources-Library#amp...
Unfortunately, scriptlet injection also can't be applied to every page indiscriminately. :/
! works on OP's link
ehow.co.uk##script:inject(ampproject.org/v0.js)
! doesn't work at all
##script:inject(ampproject.org/v0.js)
So I'm just mentioning it here for completeness' sake.I note that page says "By default, content blocking uses the Disconnect.me basic protection list" - and reddit.com is on that list: https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti...
(I'm guessing reddit's "social button" is considered a tracker.)
[edit] confirmed, it's definitely Content Blocking: I just loaded that jsbin in an FF private window, and there's a message in the console to that effect.
https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine#benefits
Tobacco also naturally contains, in addition to the nicotine, other compounds that act like MAOIs - ie, as antidepressants:
- IID: "independent and identically distributed", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_and_identically_di...
- OLS: "ordinary least squares", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_least_squares (I think)
Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
You can change the subdomain to "i" on any reddit page, or access the same version by adding ".compact" to the end of the regular URL (which can be more convenient, thanks to the ".com" button on mobile keyboards): https://www.reddit.com/.compact, https://www.reddit.com/r/CatsStandingUp/comments/7bcm79/cat/..., etc
The Kremlin internet propaganda project had, at its peak, a budget of more than $1.25 million per month.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/mueller...
Another aspect: I've set up my browser to be pretty aggressive about blocking ads & trackers, to the extent that in practice any website is limited to tracking only what they can collect server-side, with first-party isolation; as such, GDPR doesn't give me that much extra protection when I'm interacting with sites that I'm not actively giving my personal details to.
I'd still appreciate the additional protections GDPR provides, in terms of control over that server-side tracking, and when interacting with sites that do know who I am; and I see the value in even the protections I don't personally benefit from, for the sake of people who aren't tech-savvy enough to lock down their browsers to the same extent (and to deal with it breaking sites, when that happens). So I'm still a fan of GDPR in general - it's just that, when it comes to me personally, just passively browsing a site, my own browser set-up is adequate for my liking.
Eh... maybe? I mean, you could achieve the same end result with a proxy/VPN and your browser's reader mode - to do it that way wouldn't be copyright infringement, would it? I feel like, in principle, Outline should be treated the same.
But on the other hand, the fact that they're transforming the page server-side, and caching it there, may push it over the line in the eyes of the law. IANAL, I don't really know.
To be honest, copyright law is such a tangled mess, I don't really give it much thought. Outline does the job, and if anyone's going to get into trouble it'll be them not me, so I'm happy enough.