? I use firefox all of the time and I don’t believe I have been marked as a “bot”? I rarely hit website captchas/browser checks. Do you have anything to read that says otherwise?
I use Firefox and have a VPN turned on most of the time, so I'm not sure which one's causing it, but I do occasionally get a Cloudflare page saying they've determined I'm a bot. Not captcha or anything, I'm just blocked from seeing the content.
I have no issues with Google captchas but CF just gives my Firefox install an endless spinner with no option except to contact them and provide them all the details that they couldn't collect automatically to "debug" the issue.
> It's also a page that's never visited by humans.
Never is a strong word. I have definitely visited robots.txt of various websites for a variety of random reasons.
- remembering the format
- seeing what they might have tried to "hide"
- using it like a site's directory
- testing if the website is working if their main dashboard/index is offline
Yes. I have checked many checkboxes that say "Verify You Are a Human" and they have always confirmed that I am.
In fairness, however, my daughters ask me that question all the time and it is possible that the verification checkboxes are lying to me as part of some grand conspiracy to make me think I am a human when I am not.
The string “null” or actually null? I have recently seen a huge amount of bot traffic which has actually no UA and just outright block it. It’s almost entirely (microsoft cloud) Azure script attacks.
I do not consider auto-upgrading people to pay more for something they probably aren’t already using “transparent”. Most especially if they didn’t mention in the email that there is a way to keep the existing price.
> either because they never bothered, or because their state wanted to charge extra for it
Or because their state barely managed to rolled it out at all and since they already have a passport card it makes no huge difference now. Not arguing just annoyed at my state.
This particular item has struck me as mindlessly obnoxious on the part of the states. I live in Mississippi, which is neither wealthy nor a particularly well-run state (though some departments are efficient and effective, many are penny-wise and pound-foolish and covered in red tape as a result of the corruption that allows). I got a RealID without paying extra, and AFAICT without bringing anything special for a DL renewal. However, I moved between renewals, and very well may have brought some supporting documents for that that hit the criteria for RealID (my usual proof of ID for government stuff is my passport, because it proves citizenship and identity in one, plus a water bill to prove residence if that's needed).
But several years ago when the first really big push for RealID ("hey, we really mean it now") happened, I looked at my license and had the star. Tell your state legislators that even Mississippi can roll this out to the population without special fees or obnoxious requirements, so what's their problem?
> When you focus on rehabilitation and not just punishment
From a book I recently read on the subject they seem not just to focus on rehab and lack of punishment. If there are disputes with others within the facilities the ones in the dispute must sit down and talk through their issues and find a resolution. This helps ingrain proper anger management & helps re-acclimate them to normal society where violence is rarely the best option. And it makes a ton of sense, if they never are taught how to talk out their issues they will go back to how they have handled those issues all along.
To be honest, that could certainly be filed under "rehabilitation". Giving people the skills they need to be productive members of society is definitely in that wheelhouse.
Ugh, homogeneous population is overrated. When you remove axis of discrimination from humans they just go down a level or too and use that as the basis for prejudice.
> From the study, they determined that because the groups were created to be approximately equal, individual differences are not necessary or responsible for intergroup conflict to occur.
> Lutfy Diab repeated the experiment with 18 boys from Beirut. The 'Blue Ghost' and 'Red Genies' groups each contained 5 Christians and 4 Muslims. Fighting soon broke out, not between the Christians and Muslims but between the Red and Blue groups.
Then again if you look at the continium as something multidimensional. It is easy to make everything either a very specific hetrogenity or a big homogenic pile. The greatest fallacy is the group think, you can always create groups of people and that was the point. Given a bit of encourgement the dividing lines will shift. I have personal experience from work about this and I think some of these meaningless work things we do are there for a reason.
… No, it's not the continuum fallacy: I'm saying that "the fixation index", and other such metrics, are irrelevant, except as far as people are racist. The sociological theory of "homogeneous population" is false, to the extent it was ever even meaningful.
More broadly, scientific racism is bunk. (This is a generalisation: I didn't establish it in my previous comment, but it's true nonetheless.)
I don't have evidence to say that it is irrelevant, but people love using homogeneity as a cope for being unwilling to try things to improve the status quo. Hate this argument.
They were likely in a homogeneous population when they committed the crime that got them there in the first place, so that confounder might not matter much at all.
Yes, in the sense that higher social trust, enabled by homogeneity is helpful in many ways. Robert Putnam among others wrote about it; Putnam wrote “Bowling Alone”.
> No, that's not how things are implemented normally, exactly because they wouldn't work.
I used to work for a gov't contractor. I wrote a ~10 line golang http server, just because at the time golang was still new (this was years ago) and I wanted to try it. Not even 2 minutes later I got a call from the IT team asking a bunch of questions about why I was running that program (the http server not golang). I agree the practice is dumb but there are definitely companies who have it setup that way.
So running it wasn't prevented for you, and new apps listening on the network trigger notifications that the IT checks on immediately. That sounds like a reasonable policy.
Around 1998 I snagged an abandoned 486 and installed Linux on it for use at work; the corporate software I used the most, a ticketing system, could be run using X from a Solaris server. I don't remember what I did for Lotus Notes.
Anyway, the IT department spotted it but since I was using SMB it thought it was just another Windows server. No one ever checked up on it despite being plugged into the corporate network.
This was a Fortune 500 company; things have changed a wee bit since then.
had something similar happened a few years back.. basically the go binaries i compiled and run would get deleted every time I try to run it. usually just downloading the newer version of go compiler and recompile with that solves it (I think it got flagged because it was compiled with an older version of go compiler with known vulnerabilities).
Every time it happened I think IT security got a notification, cos they would reach out to me afterwards.
The few times upgrading to the latest go version didn't work (false positives), I would just name the binary something like "Dude, wake up", or "dude, I need this to get whitelisted", and do the compile-run-binary_got_deleted cycle 10-20 times, effectively paging the IT security guy until they reached out to me and whitelist things for me :-D.
