Implies that people are always fine with having their cache busted and actually want to have a genuine conversation with you. Some aren't and will react negatively if you try.
Both are causing a dynamic that will lock down the internet evermore for everything straying slightly from the corporate-approved line.
If the divide was data center vs residential IPs, fine, but thanks to Bright Data and friends, residential IPs are getting suspicious as well, so I guess the next step is full-on client verification then...
I wish federal or state laws could force providing transparency because asking for privacy is a dead end at this point. Just force products and providers that run in my home where they phone in. Then, I can decide what to do with that whether I send them to a black hole or let them pass.
> After config fetch, the SDK opens a persistent WebSocket to:
wss://proxyjs.brdtnet.com:443
This hostname resolves to AWS Global Accelerator IPs
There is some irony that both the scrapers and the websites being scraped are probably hosted on AWS, while playing an elaborate cat-and-mouse game pretending that they weren't.
Maybe the whole age verification push will change that discussion, if suddenly requests for entire categories of services have to be funneled through a small number of age verification providers that intentionally try to block alternative OSes.
The discussion might have been mostly theoretical before, but it sure isn't anymore...
The essay gives a bunch of reasons to drop the "type" altogether and just use "<optional scope>" as prefix. The type either doesn't really mean anything or is redundant when writing commit headlines as English sentences. In a message like "Prevent thing from happening" the verb "prevent" is already basically a synonym for "fix". Similarly "Add" or "Support" likely implies "feat"/"feature".
To some extent the "type" is simply about trying to limit/standardize the number of possible "verbs" to start a commit headline with, in which case Conventional Commits made the mistake of mixing verbs and nouns (fix and refactor are verbs but feature and chore are nouns) and adding distracting punctuation where English prefers none between the Verb and its direct object in a "Verb the thing" sentence. "Verb: the thing" only ever really looks awkward.
But also do we really want to limit the possible number of verbs that a headline sentence can start with when making commits? "Fix" and "Prevent" may often act like synonyms but there are connotative differences. In some cases "Prevent" may be a shorter way to explain why something needed to be fixed in a headline because "prevent" also says "stop a thing from happening that wasn't supposed to happen" whereas "fix" alone may not yield that extra context. The top line of a commit should be a short and sweet headline and sometimes the cleanest way to do that is to use the full gamut of English verbs at your disposal to tell the right story as quickly as possible.
In my experience both are more often in noun form with an article ("a fix" and "a refactor") because they are both sort of awkward alone. But sure I can appreciate that's probably how we got the set of words that we did that they were all picked as nouns and only in juxtaposition does it become more obvious to me that I think it might have been better to have picked just verbs. I can see the sorts of thoughts that led to "noun: verb the object" as a "good" headline format, especially when the "noun:" is considered the important part of the headline. But only before realizing it is generally redundant between "noun" and "verb" and "noun:" might not really be all that important (as the article points out flaws in).
That shift might have been plausible if it happened in the 40s or 50s when the economy switched from war to consumption - but in the 80s? What kind of massive breakthrough in food production happened there that we mysteriously never heard of?
There were a ton of programs after WWII to improve the nutrition of the country. This largely meant raising calories to prevent malnutrition. And the 80s are as good a point as any other to where that succeeded.
2025: If we aren't really careful with AI it will start to recursively improve itself and grow into an unstoppable superintelligence that will eradicate humanity!
2026: Working hard to make that recursive self-improvement a reality! Any minute now...
Well, it's just a slice of the picture. It's just the one nobody likes to talk about.
A different slice: went to the supermarket the other day, late on a Sunday. There were two workers in the whole supermarket, both elderly women in their 70s.
Economy sucks here so pensions are bad, they chose to keep working.
But obviously they didn't chose to work on Sunday night. They didn't have a choice there.
If they owned the place, they would have closed at a normal hour.
One of them let out an exasperated sigh when I walked in. More work for her, but not more profit.
I overheard one say to the other, "and then at the end of the month you go to the bank and collect 800 Euros."
reply