I know a lady with four children who’s in a refugee camp in Jordan and could really use a laptop. It would allow her to teach language online and maybe get some side jobs and I think it could help her get out of the camp. If anybody has any ideas or wants to send her one please let me know.
If you're asking about logistics, try reaching out to your country's embassy in Jordan and see if you can get in touch with an aid/development worker. They know how to make things happen.
I have a really really old laptop (1gb ram intel atom dell inspiron mini which my father had bought back many years ago) which can run tinycorelinux and I also have run modern firefox on it.
Its really small and I am more than happy to ship it to her, please do note that it can't run youtube or the likes but can run python and firefox and pdf browsers.
The battery is interchangable so it can be fixed.
Honestly I would be more than happy to help with these things, wishing nothing but good for her & hope she finds a decent laptop that she needs and hopefully others might chime in too but let me know if you are interested, more than happy to help :-D
I don't want to sound too noble (because I am not) but I was also thinking of going to any nearby orphanage and giving it to them. It can let them play retro games or programming and i was thinking of spending time with them teaching them terminals but I doubt the usefulness of the teaching part as I certainly have so much to learn and I am unsure if it might be the best use case of their time too or something and (this was just a thought which had come, I haven't given too much thought about it but I might have some spare time recently)
Anyways, let me know if there is any help needed, Also I am more than happy to share my servers/vps's that I have with the lady, I have two small vps's of 0.5 gb ram (each for 7$~ish per year)
Anyways this message got long but waiting for your response and have a nice day dude and feel free to mail me if you might need (any) help in (anything)
Edit-1: thinking of just making a small video to showcase to ya what my old laptop is but I think that programming is possible on it. and perhaps it might even help given its tiny and battery upgradable and something which can help her more perhaps
OK, that’s great, I don’t know the logistics part real well either but I think if we talk to her, we could work everything out. I also don’t know how to contact you but you’ll see if there is a domain name listed in my profile, and if you go to the info address for email on that domain, you can message me there and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can. I was just talking to her just now and she said she would love to show her kids and teach them how to use it. She’s been here for I believe 12 years in the camp and came from Syria.
https://archive.org/details/img-20260523060043 (catbox seems to be down for me for some reason so I have uploaded it to archive.org) but I have installed tinycorelinux on my laptop, installed firefox,gnumeric,abiword,micro-editor,python and others but its a fully functioning laptop.
Also, I read other discussions, I am more than happy to help out sending this laptop but I hope somebody looks at the shipping costs as the shipping costs might be magnitude more than the cost of this laptop. Looking forward for discussion if anybody from Africa might need it but yeah, waiting for GP's response and gonna show the laptop to my dad now who had also on one occassion asked me to fix that laptop and uh, I might as well write a blog post about it too running all these apps on it. This laptop can run youtube!! but it does get quite heated tho but I find it incredible that this laptop can run youtube albeit very very slowly, I didn't expect it. It does crash the browser sometimes tho in my testing, I am gonna test it more and share it with my dad! :-D
The broader problem of original sources not being given credit in a way that rewards them remains. Websites owners are paying to host their content so that spiders can come and crawl them and index it into the AI and then if they’re lucky, they might get a citation, but otherwise there’s very little reward for being a provider of content. And of course, this is something that’s getting worse and worse. Why look at a website when it’s all in AI? And then the counter to that is maybe we need to start closing the website to crawlers and put everything behind a login.
Worse, the constant AI scraping is actually costing content providers additional money for no return. At least Google/Bing/Yahoo scraping would then be used to provide links back to your content.
How do you distinguish Google/MS scraping for Gemini/Copilot vs Google Search/Bing? In the case of Google, the UA is the same and you are entirely at their mercy to honor the Google-Extended instructions in robots.txt
Google has further complicated it with new search announcement blurring lines between regular search and AI search. And AI likes to not honor any licenses or instructions when it is hungry for training material.
It is once again an example of Google using its dominant position to abuse and promote cross functional products.
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some sort of legal action against Google, the monopoly, to make the distinction in how their crawlers use scraped content.
About a year ago OpenAI crawled and go DDOS level the company I work. Even despite the robots.txt not allowing it, and despite some recaptcha we could assemble in time.
We found our data in the outputs of their models but who can do anything about it...
They fake user agent, they throttle or go slow and even try to emulate mouse movements. I am not kidding that they had the audacity of doing 270k pages in a single day and they returned multiple days.
They copy books illegally by scanning the pages and try to hide the whole thing under 3rd party companies. They care 0 about the law. I suspect I know why now.
OpenAI might in fact be a good target for stuff like this at the moment. Even if your argument is weak, they may be eager to settle generously if your suit threatens the speediness of their IPO in some way. But I happen to think this is in fact a reasonable argument: I put up a sign that says not to do something with my property, and you went ahead and did it anyway, costing me money. IANAL but seems like a straightforward tort, no?
The owner of my company is not litigious guy. He already seek block copied content other times but he won't dive into a battle with people much richer than him.
It doesn't matter. Robots.txt is not a license, it's a set of computer parsable directives of how programs should access your site. The actual license doesn't have to be written for computers to parse to be legally binding.
A person should be able to write in a terms of use or license page on their website that says "do not include any content from this website in your AI training data. if you do you will be billed $100 billion dollars." And it should be enforceable. It just turns out that nerds like to say "oh that would be too hard or too expensive, so we're going to ignore it."
Contracts are legally binding even if they weren't written by a lawyer. Copyright is legally binding even if no copyright claim is explicitly stated.
I looked into this a bit (not a lawyer) and it seems that robots.txt isn't legally binding to either party, but this seems to have two major implications for AI agents (and crawlers/scrapers in general).
First, even if the robots.txt says you can crawl the site, that isn't a copyright grant of any kind or permission to copy/use that data outside of the permissions granted by the TOS.
Second, ignoring the robots.txt while also pirating the site contents could point to bad-faith and makes a much stronger case for double-damage penalties due to willful infringement.
If the site TOS doesn't explicitly grant an AI agent rights to copy out the site content AND the AI agent is ignoring the robots.txt at the same time, it seems a lot more likely that there's a strong copyright infringement case against the agent owner.
It doesn't have to be written by a lawyer. The robots.txt file is an administrative directive, by the webmaster of the website, that you, being a scraper, MUST NOT go to page x and/or y, or MUST NOT go to directory z. All the law would have to say is that it is a crime to not obey these directives. It's similar to trespassing: if I put a sign that says "DO NOT ENTER" in bright red letters on a door in my apartment, or "authorized people only!", that is still legally binding and a court isn't going to care that it wasn't lawyer-authored. The court will only care that you were told to not enter that area, but did so anyway.
I mean, did you check the IPs and make sure they’re from OpenAI? Obviously a fly-by-night AI company is going to set their User Agent to be from a big player.
It's actually costing them money/time! A friend of mine is a sysadmin at a university and he constantly has to deal with AI crawler DDoS-ing his servers. He said Anthropic is actually one of the worst offenders.
These AI companies are really just a gross example of the motto "Socialize the costs, privatise the profits". It's disgusting!
well, at least in the case of google, I'm pretty sure that's the point. Or at least, they are doing things that would seem to be moving towards being an oracle with all the answers and not the signpost that points you in the right direction. The destination rather than the gateway.
If you really wanted and are interested in doing so and perhaps are even happy with just text and normal styling limitations, I recommend you to test out other protocols like creating a gemini website or gopher website. I don't think that scraping happens on even remotely the same scale there as compared to conventional websites
That being said you would require your user to download a compatible browser for gemini/gopher.
Sure, depends on how accessibly to people you want it to be.
Most legit search engines are going to honor robots.txt and you can disallow access.
Next level would be using something like rate limiting controls and/or Cloudflare's bot fight mode to start blocking the bad bots. You start to annoy some people here.
Next would be putting the content behind some form of auth.
Possible yes, probable not likely. The moment you're issued a certificate your domain will be shown in the Certificate Transparency logs which are constantly monitored from anyone who wants to find new sites.
....Yet another vector through which "security experts" has caused a waterbed problem. Let's secure the Internet, oh no! We made a centralized list of operating domains for hostile actors to guide attacks with!
The point is that you can't escape side-channel applications of security metadata being weaponized the more you try to force ubiquity of "security" everywhere. As long as there are motivated, profit seeking attackers, you have to take into account the toxic nature of metadata. This is another example of "A System Is What It Does" proving the pointlessness of "POSIWID". Intent doesn't matter. Certificate transparency was intended to clue us into bad cert issuing, but it is also a list of potential targets where AI crawlers can be directed to scrape new data. Intent doesn't change what it is. Cert transparency is certainly transparency + a "training data might end end up here" list.
Which in a law-abiding society should be enough. It's also how we do things in the real world in many cases - i.e. here you can just write on your mailbox "no ads" and companies have to respect that.
Even when we do actually put physical locks on things they are mostly there to show that someone breaking in did so intentionally and not at all designed to prevent motivated attackers.
You might be interested to know that the “illegality” depends on the intent. If I rest on your unlocked door handle, it opens, I enter, it’s an accident.
Sorry, what? In this scenario are you claiming that you accidentally fell inside the restricted area because you were leaning on the door? Or are you claiming that you accidentally opened the door and then walked through intentionally? In the former case, you are guilty of breaking and entering in most US jurisdictions if you don’t promptly get out. Any sane court would likely agree an accidental trespass is probably not a criminal act, but it’s not an accident if you stay. In the latter case, you’re clearly trespassing illegally.
Also this has gotten pretty far away from the web scraping scenario. There’s no door accidentally opening here.
Which works when you live in normal civil times, when you live in jungle times people and robots will do whatever they want and the most powerful will get their way.
I agree with this whole heartedly. What's the point of even having copyright law at this point?
What's even crazier to think about is that to use the latest versions of these models for which you supplied training data, you have to pay hundreds of dollars a month. I would love to get a settlement check proportional to my model weights. Even if it's $0.10, at least everyone out there will get what they're owed.
From my perspective, everybody trains on the knowledge and experience of those who came before. AI just does the same thing at scale.
I do not value copyright. All it does is give you standing to sue if somebody reproduces your work. It does not differentiate or account for parallel creation. I cannot count how many times I have "created" something, only to find it in a research paper later.
Part of the reason I think copyright has no value is that, in general, individual copyright owners don't have the deep pockets necessary to sue someone who violates their copyright. If anyone is violating the spirit of copyright, it's corporations that insist you assign your work over to them as a work for hire, or outright ignore your copyright. (looking at you, Disney's Atlantis).
A significant benefit of AI that doesn't get talked about enough is that AI has a much greater reach over all the information it was trained on and can draw connections that would be invisible to someone operating at the human scale.
I don't think anyone's "making money" yet. We have a race to build up hardware for AI, and one to train models. There are some profits in there, but who's making money from the work AI performs? Nobody, because any advantage some company claims with AI is quickly replicated by competitors and profit dries up.
Today you can put a coding agent to migrate an existing application to another language (like chardet). Even if you don't have the code, if you can run the app you can still clone it, using it as an oracle for replication. That is why there will be very little profits in AI usage.
I get what you’re saying but that’s irrelevant to the argument.
They are indeed taking in money by selling the product. Just because they don’t turn a profit doesn’t mean they’re not infringing copyright as a business practice to make money.
No, you don’t have to. There are open weight models you can download and use for free. Many people choose the subscription model but it’s not necessary. And latest doesn’t mean greatest, it’s just most up-to-date.
May not always work. I then click on back button and look for the info elsewhere and in most cases I find it. Same with paywalled websites. If you are ok with a small audience (or you provide a unique content) then it makes sense. But I think in most cases you just cut off a lot of people this way and actually you can simply stop creating content if you don't want consumers of it and let others provide the content.
I’ve been thinking of a proof-of-work scheme for accessing content where you effectively need to mine some crypto for the author, but, this idea might not fly today
But that will be a hassle for human visitors as well. A web doing proof-of-work to browse, will be a disaster for phones with their limited batteries, etc.
> Although Anubis could be altered to mine cryptocurrency to serve as proof of work, Iaso has rejected this idea: "I don't want to touch cryptocurrency with a 20 foot pole."
Which in my mind is a shame. Crypto is an absolute mess, yes, but this seems like an elegant way to get something back for putting things out there.
The problem is that much of the cost is borne by humans accessing the sites. People generally get real mad when they find out you’re using their computers to mine crypto.
Mining crypro doesn't materialize money. You have to exchange it for real money which means taking a private individual's money in exchange for scam tokens.
This is the problem crypto fans refuse to acknowledge. The money doesn't magically appear, you're taking it from someone else and letting them hold the bag when whatever cryptocurrency you choose inevitably blows up, fails, or rug-pulls. It's unethical to engage with at all because you're still participating in scamming real money out of private individuals
Not necessarily. You can spend your cryptocoins with any number of businesses and it is very much the choice of those businesses to accept them or not. No private individuals need be involved.
Note also that any non-crypto currency can also devalue at any moment, although perhaps not to the same extent. Holding anything of any perceived value carries a risk and also a potential reward.
Ad blocking has always been a problem for creators but it's aimed at big corps - non-creators. The creators asked people to support them other ways or turn off the blocking. And it's not like the little independent creators wanted this version of commercialized internet in the first place.
The ai marketing teams are spinning everything they can but no AI companies are the conscript, the vultures. No question about it.
The conversion from viewer to donator is around 1%. This is true from wikipedia, to twitch, to podcasts.
The number of people who will not ever load your ads is around 30%.
I can tell you that creators talk about this a lot in private, but will not publicly because the internet has a mass delusion on how creation and compensation works. It's like trying to convince christians that jesus obviously didn't come back from the dead days later, depsite there being no logical system available that would explain it.
If we were to try and map out a functional internet where everyone wins, users and creators, there is no example where ad blocking is anything other net harmful. You either get volunteer net where 0.01% share hobby posts on their own dime for the other 99.9% or you get IRC where 99% of the population doesn't really benefit (ala 1993).
The problem is that the ad vendors couldn't keep it in their pants. The ads you're talking about are a common vector for delivering malware onto people's PCs, and absolutely destroy the usability of sites. Between tracking cookies, popups, full screen banners, autoplaying video, flashing ads, and their unbelievably high weight in bandwidth - the internet is fairly unusable if you don't block any ads
Bear in mind that many basic privacy features destroy ads by breaking tracking and fingerprinting. Its impossible to get a browser in that doesn't filter out behaviours that have been used to deliver ads
Creatives can and have adapted their strategies away from what is a very specific form of ads: the disruptive full screen ads, or banner ads. That's only one form of advertising that everyone utterly detests. Sponsored content is much more popular with the end users, and much more effective as well because its way less disruptive. Some people hate that, but overall the tradeoff is significantly better
We shouldn't confuse a single type of widely blocked advert with all advertising being blocked. Banner ads have very poor efficacy at delivering sales anyway
>The problem is that the ad vendors couldn't keep it in their pants.
You might not know, many people don't, that ad vendors came to the table little over a decade ago to make a truce with Ad Block Plus. ABP and advendors both saw that an "ad supported internet" was unsupported with no ads. So ABP was looking to set terms for what would be deemed as acceptable ads. Creators/service providers get incentive, users get manageable ads.
It didn't matter though because users rioted and uBlock (then uBlock Origin) became king. No compromises there. I mean, what fucking idiot would take some ads when they could take no ads, right?
Even less known is that Google trailed a program where you could pay them directly and they would remove ads from your browsing. This program was about as popular as shit on stick, because again, what fucking idiot would pay for no ads when they simply block all ads for free, right?
There have also been attempts like Brave, where crypto could be used as a micropayment in lieu of ads. But that has also gone nowhere, even if it does have a few snags around centralization.
What I have never seen though, and have zero examples of, is internet users trying to reconcile the situation. It's just a relentless entitlement to free everything, with a small fraction sometimes subscribing, and an even smaller fraction sometimes donating. The users are unquestionably the biggest assholes in this situation. They won't even acknowledge they have a problem.
>You might not know, many people don't, that ad vendors came to the table little over a decade ago to make a truce with Ad Block Plus. ABP and advendors both saw that an "ad supported internet" was unsupported with no ads. So ABP was looking to set terms for what would be deemed as acceptable ads. Creators/service providers get incentive, users get manageable ads.
I'm very aware of this, most ad vendors did not come to a truce with ad-block plus. ABP tried to position itself as the gatekeeper of what ads users were allowed to use (a hugely financially beneficial position for them), and immediately ended up letting through a bunch of terrible ads
It was a nice idea, but it was never going to work. There was simply too much money for the advertisers to make to allow abp to be the gatekeeper of ad content
The nature of ads has gotten significantly more invasive over time, and blocking ads today is a mandatory part of security. Ad companies *do not* have a god given right to track you, or infect your PC with malware
Users rioted because ABP did a terrible job at managing the situation
>What I have never seen though, and have zero examples of, is internet users trying to reconcile the situation. It's just a relentless entitlement to free everything, with a small fraction sometimes subscribing, and an even smaller fraction sometimes donating. The users are unquestionably the biggest assholes in this situation. They won't even acknowledge they have a problem.
As I mentioned in the comment you replied to, there are lots of alternative forms of advertising that users have not revolted against to anywhere near the same degree, eg sponsored content segments in youtube videos
So what's your point? AI is justified because users use ad blockers?
The whole situation including the ad system of the internet is made by the same corporations. All of it. They didn't even want paywalled content on the internet because this way they don't have to tell people how much stuff costs and how much it makes. Facebook famously makes so much money on it's users that at some point they were considering paying them.
There shouldn't be any mercy with the mega companies. On the other hand every single person that's being taken advantage now (like anybody whos ever posted anything) should be defended because copyright has failed them.
People usually point at the scale when this discussion comes up, in my experience. These companies are doing something at a huge scale spending tons of money to do it so the potential harm is greater.
People can easily justify their own piracy because it’s small scale. Even when they organize, create a whole software and tooling ecosystem around pirating media to stick into jellyfin or plex. AI still did it bigger and worse and is bad, what I’m doing is not so bad because I wasn’t going to buy the movie anyway, etc.
On the whole, about 35% of internet users are ad-blocking. In the tech space it's upwards of 70%.
It's in no way, shape, or form "small scale", and has fundamentally changed the the very nature of the internet for the worse (opinions/views of ad blocking people don't matter).
Choosing not to look at an ad, and blocking it are different things. One is totally ok, the other incurs a monetary loss on the creator. Those services aren't free to run, and the content doesn't take zero time to create. It also incentivizes creating content focused on those who cannot figure out ad blocking.
I use ad blockers on my personal computer and phone to avoid tracking. My work computer doesn't have a blocker, but I only visit "professional" sites and major blog aggregators on it, so those ads aren't egregious. Ad blockers wouldn't have become a thing of it weren't for ads causing terrible layout, poor performance, and annoying interruptions when playing sound. Not every website does it, but the ones that do have poisoned the well.
And you will not get it. As the AI pump money into lawyers and politicians - they will be the ones profiting from copyright. Total regulatory capture as US AI companies make it illegal to train AI on their output.
Remember early internet? The time when it actually cost non-trivial amount of money to post stuff on the web, and there was no expectation that webpage authors would get any money back?
This worked pretty well. Websites were hobby - one might spend their money buying comic books, and someone else might spend the money making and hosting their website.
Many of the websites I read do not collect any appreciable amount of money from ads, or have no ads at all (one example: news.ycombinator.com :) ). They want a recognition, or to share the knowledge, or community, or they are building their brand... And AI is destroying this all - the first result of "zx80" is an AI overview with a link to wikipedia and some youtube videos. If person stops there , they will never get to computinghistory.org.uk link, and won't see any related information about the variants and models.
This website is an ad for Ycombinator. It's in no way, shape, or form a charity place for devs to hang out. It's a feeding ground to lure tech people into a mega VCs pastures.
When you click "news.ycombinator.com" you are clicking on the ad.
I recently switched everything from bitbucket to GitHub mostly just because GitHub is more integrated with the AI tools I use. I feel like they’re probably still pretty big in Europe, but they’re losing in some markets more than before.
They have been relocating Uighurs to different parts of China. I've talked to a number of different friends who live in China about this. So it seems that at the end of the re-education, they reintroduced them at other locations so it likely limits their ability to organize.
because I've been studying Chinese and speaking with Chinese people online for the last few years, I've also met quite a few Uighurs who were studying English. They are fluent in Chinese plus a couple of other languages, and as best as I can tell, I have been reintroduced as they say. This is not a topic I was able to discuss with them, but they seems like nice people that were living a decent life.
Now what happened in the past and maybe what still continues to happen in these camps is surely something that will be discussed for years, and China will have a better reputation. I just study what's happening and I'm hoping that there will be some good that comes out of it too.
I have to wonder how many corporations have been hacked but we will never know, because they are worried about the value of their stock. This could actually be a much greater threat to hobbling our infrastructure or blackmailing wealthy people to do their bidding.
Presumably all medium and large corporations have been hacked. I don't think I've ever worked at an organization that hasn't been hacked. And all but one were hacked multiple times, though I'm sure that's because I just wasn't privy to the other incidents (the company may not have been, either). For criminal organizations it's just a numbers game--penetrate as many organizations as you can and then look for monetization opportunities. For many nation-states the calculus probably looks much the same, and in any event the techniques are similar.
I worked for a company that had all their Customer data stolen and then sold on a darknet market place.
They completely swept it under the rug, told the infosec guys that if they talked about the incident with anyone they would have their employment terminated and that it was to never be discussed because they were worried about their share price.
We also have laws here in Australia that says if this happens to a business it mandatory to disclose the breach to your customers.
> you must notify affected individuals and us when a data breach involving personal information is likely to result in serious harm.
A employee anonymously reported the breach to the government agency that handles this, who in turn contacted the business with a "Please explain. Right now."
The next day after they were contacted they fired every single IT department staff member. Helpdesk, Infosec, Networks... All fired, because they couldn't figure out who reported it.
Nothing ever happened to the business as they somehow convinced the government that the data that was stolen was "made up junk data used for testing" despite it being obviously clear that it was current customer info.
This crap happens all the time and businesses are continued to be allowed to get away with hiding breaches from people.
All it does is help the share price and disadvantage the customers.
Open source software has "more" vulnerabilities because more of them get reported. With proprietary software black hats are gathering exploits in a weapons silo ready to be sold on the black market.
For some reason businesses prefer to cover up their vulnerabilities instead of fixing them. When you report a vulnerability as a white hat there is a big risk that the company will use you as a scapegoat and sue you. For a business it is much easier to claim that they "caught a hacker" rather than admit their weakness in public.
Hackerone is basically a "vulnerability blackhole as a service" because researchers are dependent on bounties for their income. Disclosing an ignored vulnerability publicly weeks or months after the hackerone report can lead to getting banned on hackerone and thereby ruin your ability to collect bounties.
Because they'll come after me for slander / defamation.
Australian law provides almost no protection for speaking out against this kind of thing. Does not matter if it's true or not, it's still considered slander/defamation because you said something that makes the company look bad.
That's why GDPR includes personal liability for DPOs(Data Protection Officers) and chief executives, and requires the company have a DPO with no conflict of interest ( e.g. working under the CEO with bonuses based on stock price).
I think the idea of "no conflict of interest" for an employee of a company is a bit silly. No internal conflict of interests sure, but everyone on payroll has a vested interest in the continued financial health of the organisation.
Okay, I'm editing this post because I guess Google incognito mode just doesn't include the history on my own device, but I assume that means that it's fair game for the government. So that means the government is getting info from my ISP sort of like they do in China, right?
The only thing that protects you from is other users of your computer who snoop through history, local cache, etc. -- stuff that your computer would normally store, but doesn't due to incognito.
This is incredibly true. Cutting soda (I was drinking diet soda) out of my diet has really changed how I taste.
I used to love crappy sour gummy candy, and I can't stand it anymore. It's far too sweet, and there's not really a remarkable flavor beyond syrupy sweet and a vaguely fruit-like flavor. It doesn't even taste like really sweet fruit to me, the sweet and fruit flavors seem disjointed.
I do have a sweet tooth for fruit smoothies, though, which are probably not a ton better in terms of sugar content. I do no sugar added, but there's still a ton of sugar in enough fruit to blend and fill a cup. Hell, even cheese tastes sweet to me sometimes, depending on the kind of cheese.
14 grams of sugar is equivalent to a tablespoon. I find it helpful to remember that imagery when looking at the ingredients of something I’m about to eat - would I want to shovel a tablespoon of sugar (or more) in my mouth right now? The thought tends to dissuade me and I have become a little more conscious of my sugar intake that way. It’s shocking how much sugar is in the processed “food” we buy. A 16oz strawberry açaí refresher from Starbucks has 32 grams of sugar. :P
And having been like this for a few years, it even seems strange to me that fruit wouldn't be the first thing you would think of when it comes to getting sugar. And I'm not directing this at you. I'm just saying I used to drink soft drinks a lot too and now it doesn't even cross my mind. I do drink wine and beer and I know there's some sugar in those.
I appreciate at least having a good option that doesn't involve putting a Google product on my website. We tried to use our own captcha back in the day, and then used some third party, and they just weren't good enough. I'm glad to see them getting this market share because it means that they will get the opportunity to improve based on a large set of users similar to how Google is able to make their products so good.
If I can watch a video on my computer for free, it's not too difficult to capture it. There is software I can download. There are browser plugins. This is just one of many options available.
I do fear though that this is going to lead some more and more paywall content and less and less publicly available content.
I was trying to load a workout video, and it worked on my phone but I wanted to cast it to my TV. I turned off/on my router and Wi-Fi, reset chromecast, restart the phone, restarted the laptop. I was about to just try to do it from my laptop, did a quick survey of the home network, and then the TV started working again. Haha my workout was delayed about 20 or 30 minutes
reply