ufmace

It seems like it's difficult to really separate them these days.

You can always come up with something horrific enough that it seems reasonable, even necessary, for platforms to block it, like actual terrorism or child porn.

But then, there's always an activist group out there who really wants to ban something that most people feel is only mildly distasteful but not worth a platform-level ban and will abuse processes to do it.

And there's enough people for each of those cases who have incentive to obscure exactly which category things are actually in. More than enough for it to be hard for any platform to sort it out for sure.

So do we eventually end up with either an actual Government takeover, or everything banned that's more edgy than Mr. Rogers Neighborhood?

Not sure if meant seriously or sarcastically. But it seems like a pretty reasonable option to me. Yeah, commercial air travel is super cheap and fast these days, especially for very far destinations. But it has its headaches and downsides too, and plenty of people choose to drive for various reasons even if it's slower and more expensive.

If you have the skills and equipment, it might well be worth the $900-$1700 or whatever. You're also potentially taking 3 other people, and luggage, and avoiding the costs and headaches of big commercial airports and airlines, plus TSA etc.

Wouldn't they just land, refuel, and take off again a few times if they wanted to fly cross-country, similar to what they'd do in a car?

Yeah I get what you mean. I think I'd be a lot more weirded out than delighted if a restaurant I was going to stalked my social media (such as it exists at all), attempted to deduce things I would like from it, and presented me those things at a meal.

Okay, that's fair.

I currently do most of my browsing with Chrome and UBO Lite, and have yet to find a site that it doesn't work with. I do keep a copy of Firefox with full UBO and NoScript open on my desktop computer, just on general principles I guess.

Well, except for the other thread here where somebody pointed out Twitch, which doesn't block ads on either in stock form, which I did just check myself. Though I had already stopped using Twitch anyways, more because all of the other dark patterns it has are rather annoying.

By all means, browse with whatever setup you please. I just wish people would take it easy a little on the assertions that UBO Lite is inadequate.

It's the most real example anyone's provided so far.

I tested it on both regular Chrome with UBO Lite and Firefix with stock full UBO, and both show ads on Twitch. I haven't looked into how to actually block them, but I'll take your word that that's the only way to do it in both cases.

It seems to me, both cases require some extra action to block ads. Full requires you to dig up a userscript and how to load it into UBO, while Lite requires you to find and install a whole extra extensions. Doesn't seem like that huge of a difference to me. I suppose some may disagree, but it's not at all hitting my bar for declarations others have made like that Lite is inadequate or Google is terrible for disabling Manifest V2.

Thanks for providing a specific example! That does make more sense.

So I suppose Lite is indeed at least somewhat worse at blocking tracking. It's a legitimate concern. I admit that I don't have a ton of awareness of just how much tracking we're all subject to on the public mainstream web. Unfortunately, I fear it may be a losing battle.

What concerns me more is that there are dozens of medium to huge tech companies working full-time to track the hell out of us. That's not exactly great. uBO Lite blocks some of their stuff. I suppose uBO Full blocks more of it. But how do I know what either of them isn't blocking? It's got to be more than a full-time job to keep track of all the ways and means by which we're being tracked. Can a few determined independent individuals really effectively stop them? I tried using Firefox with NoScript for a while, but it's just too much work to fiddle with it on nearly every random site until that site works well enough to be usable.

I tend to think that, if one is truly concerned about ads and tracking, it's better to focus on staying on smaller, independent sites that do not do that at all. At least, more effective than being an individual in the middle of a full-time war between ad companies and individuals trying to block ads, trying to go to these big sites but not see the ads or be tracked.

Maybe the Brave solution is the better one - keep actual extensions to a more limited API, but more thoroughly integrate blocking of ads and tracking into the browser core. I know some people have other beefs with them, but there aren't any perfect solutions in this world.

It's also worth keeping in mind, in my opinion, that upwards of 95% of the world isn't using any ad blockers at all. Have you seen a "mainstream media" news website without any adblocking at all? Good god there's a ton of ads! How can anyone handle that! I guess we're already in a minority for trying to block ads at all, and it's an even smaller sub-minority that really cares about creating complex rules to actually block all tracking.

What is the adtech that's leaking through? I regularly use Youtube with uBO Lite, and it does infact consistently prevent me from seeing ads. I've yet to see a single one.

There does seem to be a war going on between Youtube and adblockers where sometimes Youtube will show me a screen saying that adblockers are prohibited instead of playing the video. But usually a full-page reload which I guess refreshes uBO's rules (either the original Full or the new Lite) fixes it. I'm pretty sure this also happened under the original full uBO, so I don't think it's specific to any new limitations of Lite.

Well the people posting that link seem to believe it's a clear and direct response to the question of why uBO Lite is insufficient when I or others say it works fine for us.

> Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality?

I suppose not, but I never noticed whether it was or was not being blocked. I'm not really sure why that's so important. It certainly doesn't seem to justify the "oh no google is totally super evil for killing manifest v2" vibe that goes on.

> Webpages break on adblocking not infrequently...

Maybe, I guess. But exactly which websites are broken on uBO Lite that were not on "full"? Can anybody give me even a single example? I've been using Lite for I think like a year or something and haven't noticed any.

I can see being a little mad if, say, https://mytotallyimportantwebsite.com was really broken on Lite and that was your favorite website. I just can't get all hot and bothered though at the idea that maybe some website that I've never seen and nobody can name is broken on Lite.

> Consider that you're not paying for someone to produce marketing material; it's a free thing.

I get that I'm not entitled to somebody's work to create a simple and clear explanation. But the argument I'm making is that uBO Lite is perfectly fine actually, which I don't think requires any evidence. It's the other side of the argument - that uBO Lite is insufficient - that needs to provide evidence to convince me. You're more than welcome to make that argument if you care to.

I'm telling you and others that posting links of technical details is not going to convince me that Lite is not good enough, that I need to be super mad at Google and switch browsers etc. If you try to tell me to do work to "educate myself", I'll say no thanks and keep on browsing just fine with uBO Lite. In my opinion, it's somebody who cares enough to make the case that I should change who should gather sufficient evidence to convince me. It's sure funny that they're all indignant and demanding as long as it's someone else they think should do work to change, but they suddenly get all quiet when asked to actually gather and present evidence to make a case to an audience that's skeptical instead of fawning.

Or more simply, if somebody wants to be a smug link-dropper, how about a link to even one single website that's broken on Lite, which I have yet to see anybody anywhere provide.

I agree with crazygringo that uBlock Origin Lite seems to work fine for me as far as blocking ads on the websites I visit.

I also agree that these discussions can be frustrating. In my opinion, that's because people claiming that Lite isn't good enough only seem to post super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details about what it can't do, when I don't understand the practical upshot of those things. Or vague assertions that it's not doing something which is allegedly important, where it's never actually explained what that thing it's not doing is and why it's important.

I have yet to see anybody show a specific example of a website where Lite doesn't actually work well enough. Or of any other specific thing it's not doing. I don't think I should have to read a series of 20 web pages dense with specialized technical details to understand what it's supposedly not doing. If it can't be explained simply and clearly what it's not doing that's so important, maybe it's not actually missing anything important at all.

I suppose I am a unsophisticated user of web browsers. I never got around to understanding or interacting with all the details of what "proper" uBO can do. Yet I still seem to browse the web just fine, and even build webapps sometimes, and I don't see any ads. So what's this great thing that I'm missing?

I don't think so. A moderately hard landing with an engine(s) smoldering because they were on fire but had their fuel cut off is probably survivable for most of the passengers. A moderately hard landing with the engine(s) a raging inferno pouring burning fuel all over the place because the fuel couldn't be cut off or took too long to do so is much less survivable.

Putting complex and fallible restrictions on safety-critical controls like fuel cutoff is usually a bad idea overall.

Pretty obviously a bad joke and a bad idea IMO. I did not personally downvote, but I think it deserves its current score.

Look at the timeline of the events. The switches were shut off, noticed to be shut off, and restored to the proper position within 10 seconds with the current system. Insufficient notification that the switches have been turned off was clearly not a problem in need of a solution. It would be slower and more challenging to understand an automated verbal announcement than the surely extremely obvious sudden lack of thrust and all engine dials rapidly dropping to zero.

So it wouldn't contribute at all to solving this particular case, would only be a slightly annoying distraction in the more normal case of normal aircraft shut-down after completing its flights, and would be a potentially hazardous distraction in the intended emergency case of engine is on fire and fuel must be cut off immediately, where there's probably a bunch of other extremely important and urgent things to pay attention to and do other than a silly automated warning telling you what you just did.

I appreciate this perspective, but I think building a tool like uv in Rust is a good idea because it's a tool for managing Python stuff, not a tool to be called from within Python code.

Having your python management tools also be written in python creates a chicken-and-egg situation. Now you have to have a working python install before you can start your python management tool, which you are presumably using because it's superior to managing python stuff any other way. Then you get a bunch of extra complex questions like, what python version and specific executable is this management tool using? Is the actual code you're running using the same or a different one? How about the dependency tree? What's managing the required python packages for the installation that the management tool is running in? How do you know that the code you're running is using its own completely independent package environment? What happens if it isn't, and there's a conflict between a package or version your app needs and what the management tool needs? How do you debug and fix it if any of this stuff isn't actually working quite how you expected?

Having the management tool be a compiled binary you can just download and use, regardless of what language it was written in, blows up all of those tricky questions. Now the tool actually does manage everything about python usage on your system and you don't have to worry about using some separate toolchain to manage the tool itself and whether that tool potentially has any conflicts with the tool you actually wanted to use.

IMO, this is the process for building an application image for deployment to production. If the lock file is not present, then the developer has done something wrong and the deployment should fail catastrophically because only manual intervention by the developer can fix it correctly.

I feel like it's happened to me multiple times that I've seen an ad for something I actually want, but if I click through or look up the company advertised, then do a little research on that company, I discover that it's a scam or a super crappy version, then I actually purchase the thing from a more reputable company with higher quality. So I guess they succeeded in getting me to buy something, from their competitors.

Why does this friend in particular deserve an exemption or reduced rate? Why don't they do something like take the trains into the nearest NJ suburb and leave their car at the parking lots there, which will probably be free or much cheaper, since they're doing the opposite of most commuters. Then they'd avoid this and all of the other tolls, most of which are much more expensive, and would probably be faster too.

Even that isn't enough. Much of the bias nowadays comes in which specific facts and events you report, and which you ignore.

Now that I have a little more time to search around, I easily found this study, published March 31st this year, so not quite 3 months ago:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

I only skimmed it, but I don't see anything clearly wrong about it. According to their results, GPT-4.5 with what they term a "persona" prompt does in fact pass a standard that seems to me at least a little harder than what you said - actively picks the AI as the human, which seems stricter to me than being "unable to distinguish".

It is a little surprising to me that only that one LLM actually "passed" their test, versus several others performing somewhat worse. Though it's also not clear exactly how long ago the actual tests were done - this stuff moves super fast.

I'll admit that I was not familiar with the strong version of it. But I am still surprised that nobody has done that. Has nobody even seriously attempted to see how LLMS do at that? Now I might just have to check for myself.

I would have presumed it would be a cake walk. Depending of course on exactly how we define "average interrogator". I would think if we gave a LLM enough pre-prepping to pretend it was a human, and the interrogator was not particularly familiar with ways of "jailbreaking" LLMs, they could pass the test.

I've tended to agree with this line of argument, but on the other hand...

I expect that anybody you asked 10 years ago who was at least decently knowledgeable about tech and AI would have agreed that the Turing Test is a pretty decent way to determine if we have a "real" AI, that's actually "thinking" and is on the road to AGI etc.

Well, the current generation of LLMs blow away that Turing Test. So, what now? Were we all full of it before? Is there a new test to determine if something is "really" AI?

I did run through the whole thing. It doesn't actually say anything at all about what is or is not vulnerable, it's just a bunch of military standards and procedure about how to test for things and what to test, and some vague stuff about potential ways to protect things and what large military hardware they'd like to test.

Curiously, all of the links people have thrown out in this thread seem to prove exactly what I said - there's damn little available to the public in the way of documented experiments on real hardware for EMP susceptibility.

I don't have any really solid cites for it offhand, but it has been my understanding that small devices aren't vulnerable. I don't know EMPs specifically, but I have been involved in standard EMI testing for approval of consumer-grade electronics, so I know there's already a fair amount of testing for and shielding against EM interference with everyday consumer electronics.

Note that this testimony is a persuasive presentation, an effort to persuade congress to allocate additional spending for EMP protection. Mr. Wood may indeed be qualified to speak on the subject, but this aspect necessarily colors his speech. It's not like there's a shortage of cases of decently qualified people exaggerating the risks of something in order to get more funding and status for themselves and their pet programs.

What I'd really like is hard data on what is or is not actually vulnerable to these hazards and to what extent, based on hard proof rather than fear-mongering by interested parties, which this doesn't get us any further towards.

Okay, that's very cool! I don't mean to trash this guy at all, he may well be a real expert in some fields.

However, it is a failure mode that people who are really smart and qualified about one thing can assume they are equally smart and qualified about a bunch of other fields that require their own specific expertise. Alas, it doesn't work that way.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing about some specific technical subject. It is a red flag though when someone takes it as a threat to their identity and self-worth to acknowledge that they don't know much about some particular subject, even if they do know a lot about a different subject.

I'm not sure about most of this. The great majority of the articles and stories about this I've read trace back to layman speculation and disaster porn fiction written by people who have never claimed to actually be informed about how these things work. There's damn little stuff out there that traces back to actual experiments with real hardware. Probably most of the serious experiments are by various militaries and are highly classified. I've seen some more believable stuff suggesting that most consumer electronics and automobiles are not vulnerable at all to the much-fictionalized high-altitude nuclear EMP.

Either way, the author of this article does not cite any sources or relevant experience, and he doesn't include any biographical information about himself to judge how qualified he is to speak on such subjects. There's not much reason I see to take this any more seriously than any piece of fictional disaster porn you could buy on Amazon.

I don't know the truth for sure myself, but hopefully we all know better than to believe everything we read, especially about subjects like this where there appears to be very little hard science published.

In my opinion, never mind that stuff, it's enough of a hassle just getting good quality pictures of the thing, figuring out exactly what it is and what a wild guess of a "fair" price would be, writing up some sort of description, dealing with questions and appointments from potential customers. It makes it not worth the time and bother unless you're pretty sure you can get a few hundred bucks for it. Modulo of course how rich or poor you are right now and how much free time you have etc.

To be fair, my impression is most people have highly contradictory desires along these lines.

They say they want to be able to walk to places more. But they also want a big suburban-style house with bedrooms for everyone and storage and garage and lawn etc, easy parking for them, nice wide roads to drive everywhere on and tons of free parking when they get there. This makes it impossible for the area to be walkable unless everyone else lives in small apartments and there's actually only enough parking for just them to drive if they feel like it.

In my opinion, it doesn't work that way. Yeah everyone wants to be the special 1% like that, but only actually 1% will be. If you really want to be walkable, you personally will need to live like that too.

Did you mean to post the same link for both?

I find it very telling that there's no 2 responses to this post recommending the same thing. Confirms my belief that there is no real alternative to Wordpress for a free and open-source CMS that is straightforward to install and usable to build and edit pages by non-tech-experts.

Ditto to self-hosting wordpress works fine with standard hosting practices and not installing a bazillion random plugins.

The technical aspects of this seem concerning. I'm wondering exactly who has the authority to set a car to this mode and how the mechanism of doing so works. What happens if you sell the car or let somebody else borrow it? Or when you get another car, or rent one? What are the failure modes of it, like if the GPS glitches a little and decides you're on a feeder or surface road when you're actually on a freeway? I think we've all seen GPS guidance devices do that.

If this is actually being implemented as widely as the article suggests, I guess we'll all find out the answers to these questions pretty soon, the hard way!