tcd

I know you're sarcastic but Bootstrap has been picking up steam recently. The jQuery removal has been in the work since 2017.

If you want faster releases then feel free to submit PRs :)

Apart from the fact there is no decent reddit alternative. That is after reddit offered their entire product free with the source code and data (and the data is still offered for free...)

If there was going to be an alternative, it would be here by now.

People just don't care that much, contrary to what you may believe.

It's hilarious, after the event-stream fiasco last year, NPM has changed...Nothing. NodeJS made a 'package maintenance' repo, but failed to address the actual root cause of the problem.

We'll see plenty of other NPM disasters this year, and as always, nothing will change because security is an afterthought not a core mission principle.

If it was, NPM wouldn't exist in its current form. It's confusing, adding extra security wouldn't even be that difficult or time consuming, they just don't.

I wish it were possible to take over a project with individuals who actually care. The people in charge of NPM are incompetent at running a secure, large scale distribution system, why they're still allowed to be a part of it is beyond me...

If security isn't your top goal you don't belong in charge of a very important, widely used ecosystem which many rely on.

> would buy tremendous free publicity.

That would not buy food on the table. Most money comes from Windows and what games should be optimized for.

See r/choosingbeggars for more entertaining stories on the "value" of "publicity".

LE cannot die, much like Wikipedia. Google et al would buy them before that happens.

They do have humans, but they make mistakes and have bias. And if we need to cover the amount of content Youtube gets per second we'd need a country of people.

Oh wait, Youtube have just gone bankrupt.

"If only the world had a significant portion of several trillion dollars that could be spent curing cancer".

Money isn't the answer to all the world's problems. But I'm intrigued to hear how you think they should "take care of the problem". Maybe you can share your innovative python script that solves the problem for good.

There are other platforms, like Vimeo or Dailymotion, why aren't people uploading there? Because there's no audience and Youtube is so widely integrated (iOS, Android, Smart TVs etc).

But if another platform got to Youtube's size, it would have the exact same issues, with having a fragile automated system, and not enough human reviewers (too much content, humans are expensive and error prone).

There's no ideal or perfect system for monitoring audio/visual data, look at Reddit for example, I can ban you because I am bored, or I dislike you, or because I want to censor you.

What can you do about it? Nothing. Who cares? Nobody, Reddit carries on as usual.

r/videos mods can control which Youtubers get traffic, ironically enough. They can automod channels/posters away 'just for the lolz'.

> I really, really wish Youtube had competition.

It would change absolutely nothing. This is NOT a platform issue, and any other platform would face the exact same problem (needing a content ID, making mistakes like this).

I'm not wanting to defend Youtube entirely but perspective is important with issues like this. Never before in human history have we have had the ability to have a free, unlimited access repository of our endeavors, and allow anyone to share their stories or creations.

Youtube is still at the wright brothers level of their systems; they're fragile, prone to mistakes and are pretty terrible to use. We didn't get to airplanes in a decade or two, it took thousands of years and we're still making improvements.

I see a lot of frustration but not many answers. How do you develop a system that has to be flawless for everyone and deal with 350 hours of video uploaded every minute.

That's like designing a perfect 4 lane highway with 350 cars every second of every day, week, month and year, and having a perfect system in case of an accident.

It's not possible, there will be mistakes and we should accept that but always push for improvement, but we're still in the early stages. Just like aircraft, it'll get better but it will take some time.

This isn't exclusive to Youtube, why do you think no one else is insane enough to challenge them? Any provider would have these issues (there are many Twitch dramas for example).

If I were Youtube I'd throw in the towel and just say "well, we can't deal with this, goodbye".

That, I think, is far worse than a few videos being demonetized or channels deleted.

Perspective is important.

I mean, in all honesty, EdgeHTML wasn't ever really an engine that had much hope. IE has always been loathed, Edge just continued that trend. Their marketshare wasn't great, and tying browser updates to the OS as they did with IE was irresponsible for how browsers are shipped these days.

If Edge had 35% marketshare I'd be more concerned, but nobody was using it, and web developers hated trying to make their sites compatible.

Good riddance to IE/Edge of old :)

Yup, your software just became compromised. No way in hell I'd ever use that now.

Time to find a new career, sorry.

I think they ought to tread very carefully and very lightly. Imagine if there was an internet where you can't just remove something. Sure, you can see the IP address of the people hosting/distributing the material, but there are numerous ways to disguise that.

Suddenly, via P2P everyone becomes their own client _and_ server, and the _only_ way to remove content is to ensure everyone in the pool no longer has it.

Good luck with that.

No, they won't. They've already fined Google billions, but have they got the money? Not a chance. Any fine will be fought for at least a decade (see Oracle v Google) and will end up in limbo forever.

They could fine Google $1 trillion, wouldn't make a difference.

If you've got an ISP that considers 54gb a lot of data it's time to get a new ISP, a new country or protesting at how absurd the idea of bandwidth caps are.

> the vast majority of revenue and views is comings from a handful of videos.

Every channel started with 0 subscribers once and were part of that "400 hours of video uploaded every minute".

Kikat was released 4 years ago, and Chrome plans to drop Jellyean on Android anyway, and genuinely, is enforcing minimums such a bad idea?

When you're handling your own PII and potentially others (contacts, addresses, phone numbers etc) I think having an absolute minimum requirement is beneficial for the Internet as a whole; for example, it'd not be easy to use Windows XP and access the Internet, for good reason, I'd hope (I can't verify that but I doubt browsers still work there).

This is good news all around, forcing people to upgrade is a good idea in the long run.

Belphemur said it best: before LE SSL/TLS was relatively 'obscure', sure many sites had it, but it was an optional extra that cost a yearly fee. Now, any old joe bloggs can setup a webserver (or use tools like cPanel which have LE integrated) and get the nice shiny green padlock with 'secure' in their browser.

And, if you run your own server, their client even generates the configs for most major web servers on most major OS', so you don't even need to lift a finger. Type 1 command and boom, you're secure.

Doesn't get easier than that.

Jan 23rd 2018: $10.87 for .com and $0.99 for whoisguard ($11.86 total)

29th May 2018: $10.98 (+0.11) for .com and 0.18 ICANN'T fee ($11.16 total).

So it's $0.71 cheaper without whoisguard. So that margin (increase in .com) probably covers the actual whoisguard cost, the $1 fee was pretty much pure profit.

> Because at Namecheap, we care about your privacy protection.

Only when we can stop profiting from selling privacy services because of a new law that came into effect a few days ago.

I'd have believed them if they did this 2 years ago once GDPR was announced. Already moved my domains from namecheap since they are not the cheapest and didn't offer free whois until now.

Yeah, that's not how the law works, sorry about that. Every human has rights that cannot simply be waived because a website says so.

Everyone has a right to privacy, and that's what the GDPR is about ensuring for EU subjects. Your thinking is extinct and I strongly suggest changing it, or fading away like everyone else who feels the same way.

Not really. Standards are nice, but as time goes on, things change, and we should NEVER only change things 'once a standard says so'. The web is an ever evolving platform, and standards are loosely respected these days anyway. Heck, browsers aren't a standard themselves!

I don't think so - I think blocking goes for both annoying and dangerous ads, _and_ blocking trackers like facebook/google's invisible pixels. At least I run ublock origin, adguard, scriptsafe and privacy badger for maximum protection.

Why would you feel bad for them? They have had 2 years to prepare for this, hopefully a few fines here and there will make people realise this _is_ a big deal and they can't just ignore it.

About time too, I really really hope this has an incredible profound impact on privacy and the EU will demonstrate this is a law people _must_ abide by.

How do you think problems are resolved if not using the internet as a medium to share thoughts with the world? And even if you think it's a 'shithole' you cannot deny how important it is in everyday life. Entire government services are going and have gone online only, and if you were barred from using the internet you'd find it very difficult to exist within modern society.

I don't know you, but I bet given enough information I can find ways the internet are vital to your way of life.

That is absolutely, entirely useless and a completely stupid way of prolonging the demise of IPv4; CGN doesn't help in regards to you wanting an IPv4 for your next billion-dollar project which may require several v4's for all the different layers (because most web apps are not that simple these days).

So sure, sharing an IP amongst many people may help a little, but we've already ran out _today_. There are people living right now that will _never_ be able to access the internet or make a website because of this.

One example: Digital Ocean have a cap on the number of servers they can run at one time due to the fact each droplet gets a unique v4.

V4 is dead, time for money to be spent in the right places :)

> At this point it seems to me it’s more of a nice to have than a requirement.

Except for the fact that, you know, we've _literally_ ran out of addresses bar a very, very limited supply? And that _billions_ of people won't be able to access the internet as a result?

I can only imagine we'll be this complacent with things like oil, or plastic pollution or anything. Only acting when it's _far_ too late. Every ISP around the world should have pledged IPv6 20 years ago, but some are _still_ not starting today!

You may think you're fine because you are able to access ycombinator.com and leave your message, but imagine how many people simply cannot access the v4 network due to address shortages.

It's not part. It's all. It's well known people can claim a video then get ALL the revenue, or disable it altogether. Also, don't get 3 strikes or you're fucked.

Yeah, if you think Facebook would EVER honour a system like that then I have many, many bridges in stock for you :)

To most people, flicking a bit from 0 to 1 is enough to convince them your data is "deleted", however, in the database, what people never see, is that it the column name is actually "hidden".

:)

> I'm sure many people (myself included) would be happy to keep services like this running

Why don't you then? Send an email saying you're willing to donate whatever it costs to keep the servers running.

Yeah. Thought so.