toby-

Actually, if you look at the source for that claim[0], it says that some were from BuzzFeed News and some from BuzzFeed; they're not the same.

Besides, it's an almost meaningless statistic on its own without some point of comparison, isn't it? How (un)critical were they of other public figures?

[0]: https://fair.org/home/buzzfeeds-obama-coverage-is-99-percent...

The company's founder did state this in an email however:

>The cost of "Facebook and Google ads, payments for loans, and other expenses" ate through the company's funding quicker than Mr Evans anticipated.

>"A large proportion of the revenue went toward paying for Facebook ads to bring traffic to the site," the email says.

This didn't go to the Supreme Court. A district court in Boston heard this case.

Reading through your comment and looking back at the Download page, I think you're right. The linkified image is especially poor design (although, I think the intention becomes more obvious when there are multiple linkified images to common software-download destinations, e.g. SourceForge or FileHippo, as (IIRC) was previously the case).

I suppose it may just boil down to a fundamental difference of opinion; I don't really think it's necessary for every website to try to accommodate entirely non-tech savvy users — especially a site offering software that already assumes existing technical ability (if you can't negotiate an antiquated download page, you're probably going to struggle to use a lot of software of that era, including Sandboxie).

Took me about 2 seconds. The large, bold "Click to download Sandboxie version 5.31.6 from ..." helped. ;)

Or, under the <h1> title "Downloads", the bolded table header "Download from" with the "Download from this site" link.

Good design doesn't require a huge, centred, flashing "DOWNLOAD!" button. This seems clear and uncluttered enough to me.

The length of time the "Tim Verfaillie" hoax stood unchallenged impressive - over 13 years.

The article's author has few contributions, and hasn't been active since 2006 (on the English Wikipedia, at least): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruges

I wonder how many other hoax articles are out there, having existed for decades without proper verification or review.

Same as regular Firefox, right? Help -> About, and it'll tell you if it's outdated.

The vast majority of the BBC's services use HTTPS nowadays, including BBC News, BBC Bitesize, Sounds/Radio, CBBC and CBeebies, etc. Only pre-2010 news stories are HTTP.

The only other parts that remain HTTP (that I've seen) are certain archived content, e.g. the older Learning[0] and Languages[1] portals.

[0]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/coursesearch/

[1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/german/

But you're using 'dark web' as if it necessarily implies "the worst thing[s]" and "the nasty shit" on Tor. The term 'dark web' doesn't refer to anything nefarious in itself — it simply means content accessible only via Tor (or some other software or network).

Sure, many so-called Hidden Services offer illegal and immoral content, but the dark web is enormous. There are many more such sites offering ebooks and other (legal) media, anonymous blogging/forums/social media, whistleblowing services, censorship-resilient news platforms (BBC, NYT, The Intercept, ProPublica), cryptocurrency trading, and so on.

Hell, even the CIA has a 'dark web' presence on Tor [1].

[1]: http://ciadotgov4sjwlzihbbgxnqg3xiyrg7so2r2o3lt5wz5ypk4sxyjs...

Most people understand Tor to be the 'dark web', so I wouldn't call it clickbait. Hell, it is the dark web.

It's you who's wrongly associating it with paedophilia and drugs (both amply available on the 'clearnet') IMO, which does quite a disservice to attempts to promote Tor to the newly privacy-conscious.

'Dark' means hidden, not 'evil'.

It's The Register. They're known for 'silly' headlines; it's their gimmick.

Anything to help them massacre the Kurds quietly.

Ahh, now I understand. That's the more sensible interpretation. Thanks.

I'm confused what point you're making, here? Not trying to be rude, I'm just unsure of your position. Are you implying this wasn't 'punishment' over China's treatment of Muslims? Or something else? Or am I misreading completely?

Oh, my bad -- definitely a fair point and I agree. I would love to see an internationalised version of this website with chemical details, and perhaps more safety information.

To be fair, the page for "Super Glue" does mention it: https://thistothat.com/glue/super_glue.shtml ("This is cyanoacrylate.") which then links to: https://thistothat.com/glue/cyan.shtml which in turns links to the relevant brands' pages.

It could be expanded, since not all brands on the site have this, though.

Agreed. As soon as I saw "Krazy Glue" (which just sounds American) I assumed all other product listings would be US-centric, and it appears they are.

Not too difficult to find alternatives available in the UK/EU (Amazon.co.uk sells some US glue brands, it seems) but it would be nice to have country-specific listings on this website to avoid the searching process.

I think you might've misunderstood. Hong Kong failed to hire any PR firms; they approached a number of firms, and they all declined (actually, two simply didn't respond at all).

And £250k with BACS (GBP/UK).

Agreed completely, but Google don't care about "nice to have"; if it doesn't ultimately make them money, they couldn't care in the slightest, yet people here will often applaud this attitude as if it were progress.

That's why I like 999, despite the risk of it being entered accidentally (this isn't as common as Americans seem to imagine). Same goes for 112, which is just as likely to be input by accident.

In placing an emergency call, sometimes milliseconds count.

Haha, it was indeed my inspiration. But it's also true! Dozens! :)

Plenty of sites respect user privacy. I should know; I run dozens of them.

AKA nothing. As the article mentions, a warrant goes into detail about how the vans function: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/statements_involving_...

The idea they're empty and "just to scare people" is a myth. They are functioning devices.

Of course they are mostly older articles; the protests have dwindled to the mere hundreds, down from over 300,000 nationwide. During the height of the protests, they were covered extensively by the BBC -- it's misleading to criticise their coverage with "BBC in 2019".

The BBC's latest article, which I linked, was 14 July. The BBC aren't alone in this: it's also the most recent French protest to be covered by Reuters, CNN, and other major news organisations.

The Hong Kong protests are still a major, significant event. The French protests have dwindled and are no longer as relevant.

No? I'm not suggesting that.

I don't believe they merit equivalent courage today, in nearly August 2019. No news organisation is covering the protests in France now as fervently as they were when the protests were at their zenith. The recent protest on 14 July (which the BBC covered) numbered only a few hundred, down from hundreds of thousands[1] in prior months.

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nationalday-protes...

You're kidding, right? The BBC have extensively covered the gilets jaunes, including the response of the police and government. They've interviewed protesters, interviewed police, written lengthy articles examining the cause(s) of the protests, and indeed published articles covering the police's tactics throughout the events.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/yellow_vests

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48154777

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46917989

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48983089

etc. You can find hundreds of additional articles. It's absurd how more and more frivolous and meritless these attacks on the BBC are becoming as time goes on.

One further point. You may not be referring to this, but the claim the BBC were suppressed from covering the protests was a debunked claim originating on 4chan (https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/28/bbc-ordered-stop-reporting-ye...).

I once had a colleague -- a reasonably educated colleague -- refer to Arabic as "Islamic"...

Same. I use uBlock Origin, and the article just fades out in the centre...

Seeing as the other comments mention this website hijacking the back button and other nasties, I don't think I'm going to whitelist this site in uBlock to test, even temporarily.

I don't think that's true. I can find no reference to "cromulent" existing pre-Simpsons, and every source explicitly says it was coined by David Cohen for an episode.

From Wiktionary: "A humorous, intentionally morphologically opaque neologism coined by American television writer David X. Cohen for 'Lisa the Iconoclast', a 1996 episode of the animated sitcom The Simpsons."

From Merriam-Webster: "It is safe to say that The Simpsons has contributed a great deal to the English language. One famous example is cromulent, which was coined specifically for the 1996 episode 'Lisa the Iconoclast'."