This is nonsense; GOG has a very simple API to list and download games you own, and all you have to do is run a downloader script (many are available online, including mine) in a cron job to keep the latest versions of games on your disk.
Unless disabling cookies means treating all cookies as session cookies (meaning you can still be followed within a session), this has the fun side effect of breaking pretty much every CAPTCHA firewall like Anubis, Cloudflare Turnstile, and any other that relies on cookies.
Unfortunately this means you have to view a lot of the web through archive.today or web.archive.org - I would know because I have uMatrix configured this way.
Session cookies for non-whitelisted sites is a nice balance between usability and privacy.
Session cookies for all sites would be fine if passkeys weren't like "We support passkeys. Do you want to use a passkey? Press ok again to use your passkey. Do you consent to using your passkey? Now please authenticate yourself to use the passkey... √ Thank you for using passkeys. Press ok to continue."
Honestly I've found that it's often the local businesses that shoot themselves in the foot more by this.
I disable cookies for Amazon because I need to login; if a local business wants me to buy from them directly they need to:
1. Not give me a CAPTCHA or cloudflare shit
2. Give me free shipping and a lower price than Amazon minus 5% cashback that I would get on Amazon
3. No registration needed to check out
and I'll buy from the local website. It's really not a high bar, they need to learn to not shoot themselves in the foot.
As for the news websites -- bleh. If they want me to read it, make it easy to read. As in, I click into it, show me the content. If I get a popup, banner, anything that covers up the content, I bounce. I'll get the news from social media anyway. If they'd rather I get it from their news website, they need to learn to not make me bounce.
I'm not opposed to advertising if they want to get revenue from that, but it should not track me, not cover up content, and not load megabytes of JavaScript to do it.
Curiously enough, .me's whois record does not list Identity Digital as a contact (as seems to be standard practice with externally-managed ccTLDs, such as .gi), and .me is not listed on Identity Digital's "TLD Portfolio"[0]
On the other hand, all of their infrastructure (registry websites, nameservers, whois server) are hosted on Identity Digital, Godaddy, and Afilias IPs. Does anyone know what the relationship between .me and Identity Digital is?
Absolutely.
According to a recent Montenegro government document, doMEn is owned by:
GoDaddy.com LLC 38.352%
Identity Digital Limited 36.848%
ME-net (local montenegrinian network) 24.8%.
Be cautious with Quad9; their main address (9.9.9.9) has a "malware" blacklist that has misfired several times already: twice for a private torrent tracker, once for gist.github.com, issue was resolved within minutes to hours. They have a non-filtered address (9.9.9.10), but it doesn't do DNSSEC verification. IMO they're too unreliable to be worth the hassle.
This is great, thanks for the correction! I tried resolving dnssec-failed.org and it does indeed fail with EDE 6 (DNSSEC Bogus). I'm not sure why this hasn't been updated on the info page[0] yet, given that the change is about three months old.
It's fine when it's a non default option. Like use x.x.x.x for DNS, x.x.x.y for DNS+adblocking, x.x.x.z for totalitarian corporate blocklist that doesn't let you do anything fun
I believe cloudflare only blocked archive.is on their "Families" filtered dns. I've been using their normal 1.1.1.1 and haven't encountered any blocks.
The clause you cited as well as the "Termination" section and the non-commercial restriction make it a non-free license. Besides the direct issues with that, it also means all software covered by this license is unsuitable for FOSS-only distributions like Debian or F-Droid. It's not entirely clear to me if the license is copyleft; derivative works have similar problems if so.
As an aside, Eron Wolf, the billionaire behind FUTO, has some rather... out of touch views[0] on the meaning of open source, and seems very committed to diluting the term to mean something closer source-available by removing the most of the rights granted (as defined by FSF, OSI, DFSG and others).
Sorry, but really when it come to open source: money dont smell. If they do give money to real projects with OSI-approved licenses it doesnt matter to me what else they do, who their sponsors are, etc. Well unless they actually do something illegal.
This is because 99.9% open source projects not targeted enterprise never ever see more than $100 of donations and being maintainer of such software is literally thankless job that will never pay you anything.
Blaming organizations for giving money or maintainers for taking money is worse you can do no matter who sponsor is: FSF, FUTO, Cloudflare, Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, DARPA or MAGA INC.
Dont like FUTO or its owner? Make a better fund, give your money to SFC, FSF or whatever open source sponsor organization is acceptible to you.
There is so little money in end-user open source software and making pie even smaller or antoganizing thankless people maintaining it is awful. Everyone doing this is either dumb, malicious or both.
eron/FUTO are not trying to dilute the term Open Source, they are trying to address a real problem that Free Software and Open Source face, and that we do need to find a solution for. their initial wording may not have been ideal, but that is because there is no defined terminology, and because the point is to be close to open source as is possible.
this is not an out of touch view. on the contrary. what is out of touch is to believe that Open Source is perfect as it is, and nothing should be changed about it.
the problem that FUTO is trying to address is the commercial exploitation by large companies (like AWS) at the expense of the original creators. a problem that several companies (redis, mongodb, elasticsearch, zerotier, terraform, vagrant, and many more...) in recent years had to face, causing them to change their license.
btw: i recently asked bruce about this and he said that AI now changes everything and he wants to wait and see how that will affect Open Source.
it is not obvious that FUTO's approach is the right one. it is an attempt at addressing the problem, and i expect that it will take more such experiments to shake out what the best approach to this problem really is.
If the website sees (and possibly stores) the e-mail address, and the government or another party knows who it belongs to, the scheme is anything but privacy-preserving.
I’m confident you could devise a way to ensure the verifying party doesn’t know which website requested the verification, and vice versa. I’ll have to think about it a bit more.
I encourage people to read through his proposed WikiProject's page[0] and the related discussion.[1] Important context is also that WikiProjects are exempt from canvassing rules; members are free to notify each other of ongoing policy discussions with the goal of influencing the outcome.
This is usually not a problem, but given how aggressively vague the WikiProject's goals are (eg. "We hope to open Wikipedia up to using more sources" - which?) and Larry Sanger's prior conduct (eg. advocating for whitelisting of sources like Fox News[2]), it seems the real goal was organizing conservative editors. I'm not sure whether the fact that this is not clearly written is deception or trolling, but it's not a good look for Sanger either way.
> advocating for whitelisting of sources like Fox News
As I understood it, he wasn't advocating for whitelisting Fox News, he was advocating for removing the blacklist. That's a stark difference.
> it's not a good look for Sanger either way.
What doesn't look good for him? It doesn't seem that he has an intent other than enabling the viewpoint of those other than the far-left, which compromise almost the entirety of Wikipedias admins and editors.
Heh, I remember being surprised when I looked up the editor for some great Russian history articles and saw that he identified as a straight-up monarchist.
Wikipedia editors are a bunch of diverse, geeky kooks.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. If he got his way the website would quickly be overrun with right wing misinformation campaigns. I hope he stays banned.
reply