Third, a redirect is obvious

A redirect isn’t necessary if you control the DNS servers. If you control the DNS servers, you can MITM the website for any visitor because you can prove that you own the domain to a certificate authority and generate a new, trusted HTTPS cert. (Depending on specifics this may or may not foil the anti-phishing capabilities of Passkeys / U2F.)

They aren’t. From a comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/ublock/comments/32mos6/ublock_vs_ublock_origin/ by u/tehdang:

For people who have stumbled into this thread while googling “ublock vs origin”. Take a look at this link:

http://tuxdiary.com/2015/06/14/ublock-origin/

"Chris AlJoudi [current owner of uBlock] is under fire on Reddit due to several actions in recent past:

• In a Wikipedia edit for uBlock, Chris removed all credits to Raymond [Hill, original author and owner of uBlock Origin] and added his name without any mention of the original author’s contribution.
• Chris pledged a donation with overblown details on expenses like $25 per week for web hosting.
• The activities of Chris since he took over the project are more business and advertisement oriented than development driven."

So I would recommend that you go with uBlock Origin and not uBlock. I hope this helps!

Edit: Also got this bit of information from here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/32ory7/ublock_is_back_under_a_new_name/

TL;DR:

• gorhill [Raymond Hill] got tired of dozens of “my facebook isnt working plz help” issues.
• he handed the repository to chrismatic [Chris Aljioudi] while maintaining control of the extension in the Chrome webstore (by forking chrismatic’s version back to himself).
• chrismatic promptly added donate buttons and a “made with love by Chris” note.
• gorhill took exception to this and asked chrismatic to change the name so people didn’t confuse uBlock (the original, now called uBlock Origin) and uBlock (chrismatic’s version).
• Google took down gorhill’s extension. Apparently this was because of the naming issue (since technically chrismatic has control of the repo).
• gorhill renamed and rebranded his version of ublock to uBlock Origin.

“Supposed to” according to what?

If you’re in the US, Federal labor laws explicitly allow “meal periods” to not be paid, though short breaks must be paid. Neither is required to be offered to employees, though.

Source: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/breaks

State laws differ, of course, and many states - e.g., California - have much more employee-friendly laws. However, even in CA, a meal period must be offered but isn’t required to be paid (unless it’s an on-duty meal break).

Have you looked into configuring them directly from your NVR? Or third party options? I did a quick search and saw a list of several that as far as I can tell can display Reolink streams (though I haven’t confirmed any can configure the cameras):

• ZoneMinder
• Moonfire NVR
• Frigate
• MotionEyeOS
• OS-NVR

And some proprietary options that have native Linux builds:

• Bluecherry
• Shinobi
• Agent DVR / iSpy
• Digital Watchdog Spectrum

Is there some sort of block chain base registrars out there?

There are handshake domains, which are distributed on a blockchain, but sites that use them won’t resolve in browsers by default

What happens when you click the “Next” button down at the bottom right?

If it doesn’t take you to your ticket then that sounds like a bug. Definitely a frustrating one; hopefully not intentional.

You can use your phone’s browser to access the ticket. From https://help.livenation.com/hc/en-us/articles/9907955578129-How-do-I-use-Mobile-Entry-tickets

How do I find and use my tickets?

On a mobile browser:

1. Open a web browser app and go to Ticketmaster.com.
2. Sign into your My Account.
3. Tap the circle in the top right and tap Upcoming Events.
4. Find your order and tap View Tickets to access your tickets. We recommend adding your tickets to a digital wallet so that you’ll always have your ticket on hand.
5. Your phone’s your ticket — scan it at the venue entrance and you’re in!

Also, if the event isn’t Mobile-only, you can select a different option for your ticket. See https://help.livenation.com/hc/en-us/articles/9902009367953-How-are-tickets-delivered for more details.

All the more reason to not complain when Google Play does it.

The tech I’m talking about isn’t related to speed limits, but zones where pedestrians, particularly children, are much more likely to be in the street.

when you exceed the speed limit the car automatically notifies the government so they can find you.

I assume you meant “fine”; regardless, why is there a need for that in order to enable the second piece?

You can opt-in to have the car automatically control you top speed so you don’t get fined.

Change that to “You can enable a feature that will automatically reduce your set cruising speed (or, if you’re not using cruise control at that point, give you tactile feedback on the accelerator foot pedal) when you enter an area where pedestrians are in the street or are expected to be in the street (i.e., there’s a cross walk up ahead and a pedestrian has triggered it).” Or, to summarize similar to what you said: “You can have the car automatically reduce your speed when necessary so you don’t kill people.”

Makes sense, and is aligned with the “reduced barrier to entry” theory posited by another commenter. Just to be clear, though, what I read (though very imperfect stat-wise) suggests that e-bikes are less prone to accidents, not more.

If ebikes are disproportionately represented in cycling accidents

To be clear, based off the (incomplete) data I have, it looks like e-bikes are under-represented. 22% of bicycles are e-bikes and e-bikes only make up 10% of cycling accidents.

It’s possible the 10% stat was of total accidents, making it 20% of cycling accidents, meaning they’d be properly represented. Or maybe the stat is from multiple years ago, when e-bikes made up 10% or less of bikes on the road. Or both, in which case they would be over-represented, at which point it would at least make sense to include the stat.

If they are over-represented, what you said would make sense! And at that point, I would think it would be most effective to focus on providing more opportunities for training and education to riders. Maybe they’re already doing that, too, and this is just one more thing they’re exploring.

The speed limits they listed seem so low given that 90% of bicycles in Amsterdam (or at least, those that are “victims” in traffic accidents) are unpowered. I’m not even a hobbyist cyclist, but on my (unpowered) entry-level hybrid bicycle I rode faster than 25 km/h (or 15 mph) the last time I took it out… and heck, I can run faster than 15 km/h.

The accident stats also don’t back up the idea that e-bikes are a problem demanding regulation, which makes me think that there’s knee-jerk politics at play here rather than this being a clear-headed response to a real problem. I’ll explain how I arrived at that conclusion.

First of all, as an aside, it’s weird that they said “more than half of all traffic victims were on a bicycle,” when the metric here should be the number of traffic collisions caused by cyclists. But supposing that’s actually what they meant:

• if half of all accidents are caused by bicycles, then the other half are caused by cars and other motor vehicles. Since bicycles outnumber cars 4:1 in Amsterdam, that means cars are 4 times as likely to cause accidents as bicycles (startling low compared to how much more dangerous they are in the US). They recently lowered the speed limit of cars to 30 km/h, but I’m not sure if the stats take that into account. Maybe it needs lowered further, or maybe they should only allow cars with the same sort of smart governors installed that they’re testing out for e-bikes?
• One in ten of those cyclists was on an electric bike (meaning 5% of accidents were caused by someone on an e-bike). 57% of bicycles sold in the Netherlands in 2022 were electric, but bikes last a while and they have a ton of them. As of the start of 2023 they had an estimated 5 million e-bikes, and the country has 23 million bicycles total (more than 1 per person). This means that 22% of their bikes are e-bikes, and (assuming that ratio applies to bikes on the road in Amsterdam) then given that only 10% of accidents involving bicycles involved e-bikes, that means that unpowered bicycles are a bit over twice as likely to cause accidents as e-bikes. Honestly, though, the ratio of e-bikes to unpowered bicycles is probably higher - I would expect people are more inclined to ride the new bicycle they just bought rather than one of the ones they’ve had for several years.

Obviously these stats are fairly sloppy, but I worked with what I could find.

Assuming my conclusion is accurate, this still doesn’t mean that e-bikes are less dangerous than bicycles - the accidents they’re in may be worse - but it certainly doesn’t suggest that e-bikes are the problem. I’m aligned with the other commenters here - this isn’t going to address the problem of people riding already illegal e-bikes.

The tech sounds cool and I’d love if it could be applied to cars, too, even if it’s opt-in only.

Speed limit signs with ranges would make sense if given some additional clarification by the issuing authority. For example:

• The upper bound is the limit in perfect conditions; the lower bound is the limit when the weather is bad in any way
• The upper bound is the limit when there’s no traffic. The lower bound is the limit when there’s substantial traffic.
• The upper bound is the limit normally. The lower bound is the limit during school hours.

Even without a clarification drivers could probably assume it’s some combination of the above.

(A job description could have the same clarification but probably doesn’t, as “minimum” is just an error on the part of the person writing it. But they could say “5-10 years minimum experience, depending on level and nature of education,” and then a reader could infer that a person with a relevant Master’s degree might need 5 years of experience; a relevant Bachelor’s degree - 6 years minimum; a major in something else - 8 years minimum; only a high school diploma - 10 years minimum.)

Generally speaking, doesn’t the buyer pay their fee, in the sense that a portion of what they pay goes to them? If so, wouldn’t it have made more sense for them to have withheld that portion of money when refunding the buyer?

it now primarily has alt-right, conspiracy and terrorist uses.

Assuming you meant “users” - I highly doubt that the users you described are even a large minority of Telegram’s user base. They’re highly publicized but that’s it.

Telegram is just a tool. How is saying “don’t use it because terrorists use it” different from saying “don’t use a screwdriver because terrorists use screwdrivers.”

Telegram isn’t a secure messenger like Signal, Matrix, the others you mentioned, or other e2ee options out there. It has an extremely limited secure mode that is useful if you need to have a one-off conversation, but that’s it. But if you don’t need a secure messenger and instead want something to replace Twitter, Discord, other social media, or to serve some other purpose, then it’s fine for that.

founder is sketchy

I’m not familiar with the folks associated with the other apps you mentioned, but Signal’s former CEO and co-founder, Moxie, is a pretty dubious character, too. Signal is anti-FOSS: you can’t use their servers if you fork the client; they won’t federate if you host your own servers; they’re opposed to being on F-Droid or even providing reproducible builds; and they have a history of failing to update their repos in a timely manner, to the point that clients built from source couldn’t even connect to their servers.

That all said, I still use and recommend Signal.

I had a gym tell me I could only cancel by mail, so I sent them a certified letter. They kept billing me and eventually the letter got returned because they never signed for it. So I just disputed the charges from every date since I’d first sent the letter. After I shared the scan of the returned envelope with my bank the first time they made every subsequent chargeback real easy. I think they billed me two more times after that before they finally stopped - unsure if it was because they were blacklisted or because of the fees they got charged.

In the US, if you don’t proceed to step 3, step 2 is legal (so long as the CD lacks DRM). You’re permitted a single backup under fair use; you’re also permitted to rip the music for personal use, like loading it onto a music player. You’re not supposed to burn it to a regular CD-R (is it illegal? Idk), but burning it to an Audio CD-R (where there is a tax that is distributed to rights holders like royalties) is endorsed by the RIAA.

You have an idea of what you’re buying and you know what you have once you’ve shucked it. The worst case scenario is that it’s not what you expected, isn’t suited for that use case, you can’t find another use for it, and you can’t return it… but it’s not like anyone is forcing you to add an unsuitable drive to your setup.

How is your comment at all relevant to the idea of Apple benefiting from piracy?

Yeah - the tweaks can be substantial and they have the flexibility to do more. Brave has a whole development pipeline for incoming Chromium changes so they can intentionally bring in code they want and avoid bringing in code they don’t want, like FLoC, or changes that would conflict with their own tweaks. But I don’t think many other browsers change a ton in the engine itself, so you effectively end up with them getting as much customization of Chrome, Firefox, or maybe of Safari (mostly of Chrome) as Apple allows browsers on its platform.

Having older versions isn’t generally an advantage, unless you’re trying to test for compatibility or something similar. It means you’re more vulnerable to known threats that have been patched in current versions of browsers