> Bot protection with fingerprinting is just an illusion. Any signals like this which is on client side can be spoofed by an above average person.
At the upper bound, fraud can always be committed by paying real people with real accounts to perform the desired action in a way that is 100% truly indistinguishable from organic. There's fundamentally actual prevention technique at the limit.
So the entire game is only "increasing the costs until it's not viable ROI", not "holistically prevent", which is why fingerprinting is a relevant technique here.
> entire game is only "increasing the costs until it's not viable ROI", not "holistically prevent", which is why fingerprinting is a relevant technique here.
As per cloudlare's own report, about 78% of the DDOS attacks are at the network layer where the fingerprinting technique is not useful.
DDOS is done against targets for certain reasons, most businesses are not even viable targets for everyone.
However letting everyone being fingerprinted on the pretext of solving the DDOS is where the privacy gets compromised (not much of it is left though). Some search engines did it indirectly by letting people use tag managers for free in their website and then utilize the data for their advertising business.
Relatively the end game is same, its just how these companies are approaching it.
It has scrollbars, but there's benefits to having more on an individual page at once. The tradeoff point seems unclear but everyone must recognize some tradeoff there.
Foldable maps allow for getting everything on one view by having the final display area be enormously larger, which isn't an option on laptop screens.
Let's say you are writing into a byte[] and have a LEB128 length-prefix followed by a payload, but that determining the length actually involves nontrivial encoding work. For example, you have a UTF16 string and want to write out a UTF8 string, you want to go over the characters and write them out, but the UTF8 length is not known without doing all of that work.
If you can choose a fixed number of bytes for the length prefix, you can skip that number, do the encoding and find out the length, and then come back and fill in the length-prefix after.
But you actually don't know how many bytes it will take without doing all of the work to know the payload length (since larger payloads take more bytes to represent the length).
If you allow overlong representation you can reserve a few bytes and sometimes it'll just be the effective no-op bytes. If you don't, you won't be able to.
Typically a strong account team builds processes with other teams (compliance, engineering, etc) that enshrines and insulates important accounts from accidents like this.
In this case, I'd expect major accounts (and maybe Railway isn't above this level?) to be in a protected tier that is immune from automated suspensions like this.
If suspicious traffic occurs that _would_ trigger a suspension like that, the account team would be paged. Because this may mean your important account was compromised, shipped a bug, has been hit by something and you should immediately start working _with_ them to figure it out.
Fairly basic for a company with any customer management motion at all.
There's probably something eloquent by Hannah Arendt about how 190,000 Americans killed by health insurance companies goes unnoticed while one person killing a CEO becomes a spectre of "left wing extremism" held up as an example.
Or was it by The Joker from Batman?
Or was it when protesters in Latin America sat down blocking a road to protest environmental destruction and an American driver was so angry that he was mildly inconvenienced that he got out of his car and murdered one of them with his gun. And Joe Rogan's podcast commentary was "what did they expect?", more annoyed at the inconvenience to drivers than the murder of a human.
Or maybe when Just Stop Oil protestors threw soup and mashed potato on the glass in front of a painting, with the idea "look how angry you are at the damage to a valuable and irreplacable object, this is how angry you should be at the damage to the valuable and irreplacable environment which keeps all humans alive" and Fox News laughed at them for both damaging something important and not causing any real damage so they were ineffective. Then the judge gave them 2 years in prison on the grounds that throwing a can of soup at someone's face would be violence, so throwing it at a painting is violence. But no oil executives overseeing the Exxon Valdez disaster or the Gulf of Mexico disaster faced any jail time at all.
Or when the suffragette movement cut a painting of Venus de Milo to protest against Emmeline Pankhurst being arrested and rough-handled, and people were angrier about the harm to the painting of a woman than about the harm to a real woman.
Or when Fox News says "they aren't protesting the right way" so Kapaernik asked actual verterans how to peacefully protest respectfully and they told him to kneel during the national anthem, and the complainers didn't care a whit and said that was still the wrong way and disrespectable, and he lost his job and the president tweeted rude things about him personally, and the national football thingy made that kind of protest forbidden, almost as if the objection "protesting the wrong way" was all bullshit.
Yes, probably Hannnah Arendt could put it eloquently.
But you're right, murder is wrong, and that's all there is to it.
> There's probably something eloquent by Hannah Arendt about how 190,000 Americans killed by health insurance companies
Health insurance companies don't kill people, quite the opposite. If it weren't for health insurance, a lot more people would die. Murdering their CEOs is crazy extremism.
Physicians For A National Health Program put the figure at 200,000 people annually[1]. What's your source for saying the number is zero? When they deny claims, people die. When they override medical doctor recommendations and insist on cheaper treatments, people die. When they tangle up customers with paperwork and bureaucracy, that some people can't access the health insurance they pay for. When they take money out of the system as profit, that money isn't helping the sick. When United Healthcare spends $12M/year on lobbying[1] it isn't doing that to improve patient care.
> Murdering their CEOs is crazy extremism.
When a system doesn't have a pressure release valve, the pressure doesn't go away. When a system blocks or ignores peaceful protest, the pressure doesn't go away. The thread running through my comment is that harming humans is wrong, yes murder is wrong - but sticking a label on it and saying "leftist extremism" and then denying real issues is not helping. The system needs ways to hear people saying "things aren't fine" before those people go crazy extremist, not after.
> Physicians For A National Health Program put the figure at 200,000 people annually[1]. What's your source for saying the number is zero?
I'm not saying the number is zero. I'm saying the number is vastly negative. They are overall saving a lot of people rather than killing them. Health insurance companies are hugely net-positive.
> but sticking a label on it and saying "leftist extremism" and then denying real issues is not helping.
Talking about murdering CEOs is helping far, far less.
Imagine I believe that the Democrats are net-negative. Would this justify people saying that Democrat leaders should be murdered? Or that labelling these justifications of murder as "rightist extremism" is "not helping"?
Compared to no healthcare at all, yes, but similar could be said of Crassus' firefighting service in ancient Rome. He brought his slaves to your burning property and they stood around outside while you negotiated selling your property to Crassus at a bargain price. If you agreed, he ordered his slaves to fight the fire and you got some money. If you didn't, they let it burn and you got nothing. Crassus would be there to buy the ruins for even less if you couldn't afford to rebuild. That's a net positive for Rome compared to no fire service - fires don't spread to other buildings as often, people get something instead of nothing - but it's hardly a ringing endorsement, and it could be better.
Observation 1: you are bothered by the murder of the CEO. You dismiss the business-as-usual harms to hundreds of thousands of poor people. You consider yourself to have a good grasp of what is crazy.
Observation 2: when faced with claims that insurance companies kill people, you turn to dreaming of a world where you can talk of killing Democrat leaders. You still consider yourself to have a good grasp of what is crazy.
Complaints, letters to the editor, letters to congresspersons, achieved nothing; the murder of a CEO has achived nothing; what size event would make you notice?
> "Imagine I believe that the Democrats are net-negative"
Just feels important to say, for the record, that facts don't support that position; the Economic Policy Institute[1], and the Senate Joint Economic Committee[2] found that since 1949 the economy performs better under Democrat administrations than under Republican administrations. Job growth is greater. GDP growth is faster. Unemployment is lower. Small business creation is higher. Manufacturing investment is higher. Stock market returns are higher. Wage growth is faster. Recessions start less often.
> "Would this justify people saying that Democrat leaders should be murdered?"
First problem here is your implication that I would support the Democrats being awful and not be on the side of people objecting [although not calling for murder]. Second is the implication that I would want to silence your free speech instead of, say, supporting your right to say things I disagree with, or sarcastically mocking you. Third (or really, first) problem is that you're replying to claims that insurance company behaviour causes humans to die with "Left bad".
There was definitely sync bugs with replays at various points.
There was even desync bugs even in live multiplayer games; there was detection that it desynced which would end the game, which in turn meant exploits that would intentionally cause a desync (which would typically involve cancelled zerg buildings for some reason).
I think "offer unlimited but TOS ban behaviors that would cost too much to support" is actually a very normal way that things work instead of "raise prices until equilibrium is reached", including in credit cards. Credit cards do simply ban people they think are "rewards churning" based on a completely subjective TOS policy for example.
Raising prices is a bad strategy if you have a smaller base that costs enormously larger than the rest. "A million users that cost $1 and one user that costs $10 million, charge everyone $10 equilibrium", you're screwing over almost all of your users. The $20/month sub price is basically just not trying to capture the openclaw users, it doesn't make sense that all of the vanilla Claude users should subsidize them (and in fact it wouldn't even work because they will just go to Gemini or ChatGPT if your cheapest paid plan was very expensive to try to subsidize the other users)
Yes, it's an unsurprising strategic choice. It's just sloppy PR that places the blame on OpenClaw somehow being irresponsible, when the actual rationale has little to do with that.
reply