Nice windup but I'll take the bait. It's hardly the same, is it? Doing something known to be very safe versus doing something known to be very dangerous, knowing full well that you're violating the law. What do you propose instead?
That sounds nice in practice, but in our post-truth, post-evidence world I am not sure what else we can do. It's impossible to dissuade some of these people and many people viewing YouTube are vulnerable to falling for their bullshit.
How would it work if you had a VPN and a private certificate installed on your browser?
1. Traffic encrypted in browser using SSL
2. Traffic routed to VPN server
3. Traffic routed to target web server over public internet*
4. Back to VPN server
5. Back to browser
*I assume at this point the Kazakh government can intercept the traffic and decrypted the HTTPS traffic, but that would itself be garbage because it's been encrypted by the VPN. Is this correct?
If the VPN endpoint is in KZ, then yes. Otherwise, no. However, if you were to be a person of interest, it would be possible to spoof the page of your vpn provider and provide you with fake vpn.
My main reason for using a proxy is to prevent my government from tracking and logging all my internet activity (when you look at the huge list of agencies the UK government has allowed access to that information you can see why).
I skimmed through this article but I don't think it addressed this use case. Sure, my VPN could be tracking me, but I have much more trust in Mozilla than I do any other internety company. This article seems to be arguing that because perfect browsing privacy isn't possible that you might as well not bother with any.
I'm interested. I thought the proposed tracking and logging requirements on ISPs never made it through parliament. Do you have any details of the requirements and agencies with access?
Your comment made me look into this in further detail and you may be right; it seems the situation isn't as bad as it once was.
> in April 2018, when the high court found the government’s power to order private companies to store communications data, including internet history, to be in breach of citizens' right to privacy.
It seems the original proposal has been watered down and then challenged in court. I'm wondering if someone more knowledgable can chime in.
Still, I don't want some government agency to be able to pull my entire browsing history, now or in the future.
Also, the article makes the weird jump from the fact that it's possible a VPN provider might log you, and possible a government or similarly powerful entity might request those logs, and possible that they might then get them - to the idea that you therefore must assume that will happen.
Jumping through all kinds of administrative hurdles is still a hurdle, even for a government (in fact, in many ways - especially for a government!). A court may not force a VPN provider to hand over logs, and a a VPN provider may have little legal exposure in a country anyhow.
Even if a government somehow managed to get permission to see them, if a VPN provider doesn't have any (or none sufficiently detailed) it's pretty likely it will not suffer much for not having logs (especially given that various privacy laws might even make it illegal to keep unnecessary privacy-sensitive data floating around), and courts tend not to punish even illegal court-order violating behavior when the party was required to engage in that behavior (e.g. by law). If anything, that's a modicum of risk with a high potential reward (publicity here we come!)
And even if a VPN service maintains logs - what kind of logs? There are a lot packets floating around on a VPN, and storing metadata for every single one strikes me as a pretty excessive expense if there's no really good business case for it. Tying various incomplete logs together doesn't always reconstruct the whole story, so it's pretty plausible some logs may still contain less data than would be retrievable if you didn't use a VPN.
All in all it strikes me as invalid reasoning to assume that merely because it's possible a VPN might not keep traffic private that it will in practice leak said traffic. That does not appear to be the path of least resistance. So even if some UK government agency were to have the intent to track some of your traffic - a VPN might well prevent that or at least make it much more expensive (in both time and effort) for said agency to achieve that.
You are overlooking a jump that seems obvious to me and I have not seen anyone address before: if government intelligence agencies go to great lengths to spy on the world's internet traffic, why wouldn't they run, and promote, the top VPN companies themselves?
Therefore, shouldn't we expect at least some of the largest, cheapest, and most widely promoted VPNs to be secretly run by intelligence agencies?
Congratulations, you're now being tracked by the government of whichever country your VPN is proxy'ing your data to.
And that government also certainly has much less legal restrictions on tracking you since you're probably not their citizen. Unless you VPN to a node in your own country, in which case, they're just tracking you at a different exit point.
No libraries off the top of my head. I know w3[.]css[0] has one example page[1] with a parallax , but I don't know if that's what you're looking for.
LineageOS[2] has a site with a decently readable source code. They also don't have exactly what you are looking for, but the <img> with id="rotate-on-scroll" (The spinning phones) and the related script[3] look like they could somewhat related -- you could probably change the transform in the script to accomplish what you're looking for.
Achieving the parallax seems to be easy enough, but combining it with all these aminations seems a bit more tricky. The animations are more complex than animate.css's approach of just animating when the component is displayed - you can play the animation in reverse by scrolling up rather than down.
I've seen the New York Times and BBC produces stories told in that parallax / animated type way and it's very effective. I'm guessing therefore that they use a standard parallax approach and them one or more animation libraries together; I was hoping there was one neat library that brought it all together but maybe that's asking for too much.
This kind of design has its place but this probably isn't it.
I am curious what they've used to achieve the endless scrolling type parallax. A while back I looked for libraries to achieve this and didn't find anything other than fullPage.js which doesn't seem to have an option for this (only full page transitions).
The fix for this is supposed to be go to into your Android settings and turn off battery optimization for Google Home and each app you cast.
It didn't work for me but loads of people reported success with it. It's a shame because I loved the Chromecast but had the exact same issue as you describe.
How relevant is architecture for someone like me - a 5-10 years of experience dev who has worked in non-managerial developer positions in small teams.
When I look at architecture patterns I feel so much of it is aimed at enormous projects, in which case I think you need actual experience of working in an enormous project alongside others from whom you can learn rather than just reading it from a book.
And there's so much difference between them.. which is the "right" one? Is Robert C. Martin's "Clean Architecture" approach right in condition X, or some other approach in condition Y?
> i imagine they don't appear on public places like linkedin
Can they do that? Just hire through a small network of people in the know? Sounds like a recipe for cronyism.
I'm not sure about Italy but in the UK companies legally have to advertise a job publicly and, if they receive an application that meets the criteria, I think they have to at least consider it, if not conduct an interview. That's not to say there is no nepotism, but there are measures to control it.
There is no legal requirement in the UK to advertise a job publicly in general, and no legal hindrance to explicit nepotism for that matter.
However there is a requirement not to discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics, and the easiest way of protecting against such claims is to advertise publicly.
But a huge number of jobs in the UK are never publicly advertised anyway.
Remote jobs paying 6 figures? Aren't they flooded with Indian applicants? Why can I hire an outsourced Indian or Ukrainian for £10,000 PA then? Sounds weird..
Simple. It's the difference between being able to find good paying work, and relying on others to find it.
You can be located in a cheap country making thousands a day while others make that in a month. Just need to be a good at finding people whose problems you can solve.
India has the most unfortunate timezone I guess, so US companies prefer Europeans, as there is at least some overlap. Plus, maybe there's unconscious racism? I.e. subconsciously associating white skin with higher skills.
reply