I like the idea and even considered contributing to the list, but this stopped me:
> NAQ (Never Asked Questions)
> My website is on your list!
> Cry about it.
That's quite a suspicious attitude. Clearly the maintainer believes he is infallible. I understand the emotions behind this, but this is not how a public blacklist should be maintained.
Yuuup. My personal website has been inaccessible to a few friends, they thought my server was down. It turned out they had some blocklist (not related to AI) installed on their PiHole, and for whatever reason my website was on that list. It is, in fact, to this day, because my request to unblock it went completely unanswered. I still don't know why the website is on the list.
Go to the Adguard GitHub (or use the extension) and report it. And get all your friends to switch to Adguard extension and Adguard Home (Pi Hole alternative) as blockers.
Easylist and its sublist are notorious for being poorly maintained and ignoring issues opened against it. Adguard is much more active in maintaining its lists. Especially Adguard its language blocklists have much, much less breakage and missed ads than Easylist.
If you know how to run a Pi Hole, you know how to run Adguard Home. And installing Chromium / Firefox / Safari extensions isn't exactly rocket science.
Perhaps it got hacked and was hosting malware without you being aware? They are pretty good at hiding it from the site owner (showing the original website to you, but not to others).
The server is and has been clean the whole time. I don't even run WordPress or anything similar on that server that would be a common hacking target. If it was hacked, I'm pretty sure Google Safe Browsing would be the first to flag the site, not some random PiHole list.
Probably because there's about the same chance of them being innocent as the "Help I was wrongfully banned by VAC :(((" posts in the Counterstrike community.
Reminder that false positives are not only possible but likely. I remember one instance where you could get people banned by sending them a specific string of characters over chat. Anticheat was scanning the entire contents of RAM looking for it.
These days anticheat software is likely to snap at anything. Who knows what they think of the development tools Hacker News users are likely to have on their computers? They really hate virtual machines for example. There's no telling how they'd react to a debugger or profiler.
Never claimed otherwise. Just saying it's a fact of life that every test has false positives and false negatives. The "is this player cheating" test is no exception.
Dude got so fed up with long loading times he debugged the game and not only discovered the cause but actually fixed it. Billion dollar corporation couldn't be assed to do it.
Gotta wonder if this guy wouldn't have gotten banned by the anticheat for having the audacity to hook into the game with a debugger or something. Only cheaters do that sort of thing right?
Yeah that would be a reasonable thing to ban for. Companies can't afford to audit every single unauthorized tampering with their software to ensure that it's benign. If it results in better cheat detection, far better to have a policy that's unobstrusive and non-applicable to 99.99% of users and something the marginal outliers will understand is a risk.
It's a false positive. He would get banned even though he was not cheating.
Whether it's "reasonable" or not comes down to politics. Optimizing for either false positives or false negatives is a policy decision. Do you punish innocents to ensure you catch every single cheater? Do you let cheaters go to ensure you don't punish innocents?
I don't really intend to discuss the above questions. I'm just pointing out the fact one of those so called complainers in the forums could very well turn out to be one of these false positives. That's what the system is optimized for.
I would add that with this attitude and how new this initiative is, there's very little chance it will still be updated 5 years from now. Really this sort of thing needs to come from Easylist or similar, who have a track record of maintaining these for years.
I don't understand the need for the author to commit the rest of his life to this or start a foundation. It is a good list for now and if its never updated again, that seems fine.
I find it a bit ironic that this site regularly talks about banning whole countries and IP ranges on our servers, then acts shocked when users do the same. The fact that somebody went to the effort to create and share this shows how poorly the public sees the web.
The reality we face is "Check your AdBlocker" is the new "Check your spam folder" and we should adjust accordingly.
Problem is if this becomes popular and people being lazy assume blocked site means slop without checking, then the repo has a lot of power to break innocent sites.
I don't have an answer because as you say with power comes people wrangling over power. And claw sloperators can be way more persistent!
Also seems a bit hypocritical given the screed about how such a list is necessary because the AI content might output hallucinations or damaging content without review.
But if it’s the author’s blocklist that is wrong, unverified, and causing harm to others? Cry about it.
Funny. The author is not sure if his (and original) extension improves Claude output, but since the original project has 4k+ start on Github, "surely, 4,000 developers can’t be wrong". So, "Please try for yourself! Install the extension, don’t forget to star my repository and see the results". No matter if it's good, just star my repo.
The main intent behind this seems to be constantly reminding users that enabling geolocation is an option, and that it is an ordinary thing to do. Dear user, why don't you still use it, everyone does it. Just click the button!
Yes, because users don't like when things don't work, and they don't think about that time they blindly dismissed a permission notification and don't understand how to go undo that easily.
So we make it easier for the user to actually do the thing they intend to do. Seems good to me.
First, let me clarify that by no means I am defending Maestro Technology here, scammers should receive much more than just some bad publicity. But the quote from the article looks a little overdramatizing: "This is particularly disturbing because the intended duty cycle of these parts is intensive and we'd probably burn through the remaining writes on these SSDs in _less than two years._"
Let's calculate:
DWPD for the D3-S4510 is 2, giving TBW = 2.84*2(DWPD)*365(days)*5(years) = 10366 TB, or around 10^10 MiB (9885787963 exactly). SMART attribute NAND writes tells 3068104*32 MiB written, which is around 10^8 MiB (98179328 exactly). So, there is 99% of the drive's resource still left, if we are talking about flash wear.
The second drive's NAND writes attribute is 356474, which is 11% of that of the first drive. And it's D3-S4610, which DWPD is 3, so the writes barely scratched the surface.
Again, I am not liking scammers who sell used drives a single bit, the overall situation is getting worse, it's way harder now to buy new genuine disk drives (and electronics in general). But let's just be honest, this particular case is not bad, rsync.net got lucky.
I opened your link in a background tab, and switched to it after some time, I even forgot what the tab contains. The music started playing IMMEDIATELY with MAX VOLUME. It's 5 AM here. Nice joke. Negative interest in the game followed.
A couple of years ago I've made a Python program for generating all possible solutions of this Crosswordle game: https://crosswordle.vercel.app The app shows the overall number of solutions and some stats, like how many solutions contain certain word at certain position.
It was not completely useless: it was a big motivation factor for learning Python, because me and my friends were obsessed by the game.
It took around a year and 3 algorithm redesigns till the program could find all solutions of a 6-word Crosswordle in a somewhat reasonable time - 2-3 hours.
> NAQ (Never Asked Questions)
> My website is on your list!
> Cry about it.
That's quite a suspicious attitude. Clearly the maintainer believes he is infallible. I understand the emotions behind this, but this is not how a public blacklist should be maintained.