GrievingWidow420

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not related much, but imagine being a citizen of ancient Greece having to walk for hours under killing sun, gushing barbarians' eyes and slicing wolves on your way to the Olympic games only to be told by a feller with a lisp: "Excuse me, sir! Video recording is not allowed here.". It's a comfy time we live in actually.

Edit: spelling

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Hope folks will actually stick to claims such as this when the time comes

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Now there's that print monitor that's on by default, and can only be shut up by using a command line. Wtf? In the 21st century?

Lemme get your russian immigrant wife to setup that VR headset for you, so that you can disable any process you like like it's Jarvis

Edit: Care to point to my wrongs?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

In that case you wouldn't have gotten the security part and your time and, maybe, money would have been lost, but you not having this certificate, ironically, demonstrates you learned enough

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just curious what you're up to, bud

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Make sure the OP provides you with a binary first

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

bash: fewer: command not found

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

#2. Use a VPN. Mullvad is great but they recently removed port-forwarding so if you care about port-forwarding I recommend going with something like ProtonVPN (paid).

#3. Bind your VPN to your torrent client. (I recommend using QBittorrent)

Maybe before suggesting these two, which are more go-to than they should be, you should have suggested checking their national, cultural and legislative view on piracy and, if at least two result positive, should have suggested to search for websites that are totally shady but look good and work better, that host downloadables either via torrent or direct downloads. Many nations have their own.

Feel free to consider the above as #2 and then go from there, my bud PRUSSIA_x86

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Yeah but how much for 4?

Wish I could tell you, buddy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Whatever you want, man, that's the trick

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ignoring its existence is spitting in the mouth of pragmatism, and not in a good way

1
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Was casually reading through Firefox release notes for version 115, and in "Changes" section there is an introduction of a new back-end feature that restricts extensions behavior

We have introduced a new back-end feature to only allow some extensions monitored by Mozilla to run on specific websites for various reasons, including security concerns.

This feature is obviously still under development, but it already forced people to look for fixes. This suggests the user-unfriendliness of this feature, which may be related to the goals that the infamous Web Integrity API is seeking: partly, controlling and limiting extensions, which are there for the community(!)

I, of course, understand that this update dates back to 4th of July 2023 - some time before this DRM-the-web thing exploded, but still it contradicts things that Mozilla stated in opposition of Google's plan to hijack [even more] the internet.

How long before the YouTube page will be too private, sensitive and important to allow uBlock Origin from running on it? Will Mozilla decide that youtube.com is "quarantined domain" or will it accept suggestions from its monopoly colleagues?

This ~~feature~~ bug can be fixed by going to about:config and setting "extensions.quarantinedDomains.enabled" to "False". For now.

Not trying to make a fuss and/or cause a hysteria, just pointing out that such a thing was introduced and slipped under the radar (haven't seen a discussion about this on the internet). Mozilla may have other intentions for it, but it doesn't look like something made truly "for the people, not for profit" as some of Mozilla's slogans state.

Will be happy to discuss.

EDIT: "uBlock" > "uBlock Origin"

view more: next ›