Recently I used Google maps to search for the nearest DHL near me so I could return a package. DHL is not that popular near me and when I specifically typed for DHL, I would get only their competitors in the search results.

There was a DHL service center near me and I had to scroll a bunch to find it. Oh, and apparently big box stores (or anyone) can pay Google to come up in the search on maps, even if unrelated.

I don’t think they have skin the in shipping game but their algorithms are over optimized that they don’t even show what your searching for, but trying to infer why you’re searching for it. That or whoever pays them more. Certainly a search risk

The statement is very informative. The bug happens under increased read/write operations to the same file causing a race condition.

I also found interesting:

Despite the bug being present in OpenZFS for many years, this issue has not been found to impact any TrueNAS systems. The bug fix is scheduled to be included in OpenZFS 2.2.2 within the next week

I’d really want to know what’s driving them

likely ego

When I was in college, two older classmates whom I respected got into a hilarious argument of why Gnome was awesome and now eats rocks (their views, I had no views).

Their elaborate and very specific descriptions of functions and inconveniences drew up a picture of functionality and a e s t h e t i c I had never experienced on windows. So I proceeded to install a distro and take it for a ride

The letter is a post on his own blog . Hard to distill into a summary so I recommend reading it get more context. But it seems to have boiled down to:

• How It Was:

  • Strong adherence to the “don’t be evil” ethos, focusing on societal good over profits.
  • Open, transparent communication and decision-making processes.
  • High morale, with a culture of learning from successes and failures.
  • Work focused on benefitting the web and users, rather than Google’s immediate interests.
  • Collaboration and lack of internal silos, encouraging innovation and autonomy.

• How It Is Now:

  • Shift from user-centric to Google-centric, and then to individual-centric decision making.
  • Eroded transparency and increase in organizational silos.
  • Decline in morale and a culture of distrust between employees and management.
  • Focus on short-term financial gains leading to layoffs and defensive employee behavior.
  • Lack of clear vision and leadership, resulting in confused and ineffective management.
  • Overall deterioration of Google’s unique, innovative culture and values.

Brave has superior fingerprint protection, they achieve this by randomizing the browsers fingerprint. Visit EFF’s cover your tracks to test your browser.

To achieve the same functionality that brave achieves out of the box with Firefox I need many extensions and then when I profile both browsers, Firefox is more resource intensive. Brave’s blocking is native to the browser. I will give Firefox the W because I’ve read that uBlock is technically more capable. But as a long time Firefox/uBlock user who switched to brave - this has not been noticable.

As for accessibility, I can configure brave to be really aggressive at ad blocking, tracking blocking, fingerprint blocking, and restricting JS even, and all those options I can set from one place instead of in different settings/extensions. When a website breaks, I click on the button next to the URL and immediately have options to granularly dial down the “protection” or add a website to my trusted list. In Firefox I was annoyed to having go through settings for the extension.

Brave plans to continue supporting Manifest V2 after Google kills it. For Ungoogled Chromium, however, it’s still undecided, likely depending on whether UG contributors are willing to maintain it.

Brave has superior fingerprint protection, they achieve this by randomizing the browsers fingerprint. Visit EFF’s cover your tracks to test your browser.

To achieve the same functionality that brave achieves out of the box with Firefox I need many extensions and then when I profile both browsers, Firefox is more resource intensive. Brave’s blocking is native to the browser. I will give Firefox the W because I’ve read that uBlock is technically more capable. But as a long time Firefox/uBlock user who switched to brave - this has not been noticable.

As for accessibility, I can configure brave to be really aggressive at ad blocking, tracking blocking, fingerprint blocking, and restricting JS even, and all those options I can set from one place instead of in different settings/extensions. When a website breaks, I click on the button next to the URL and immediately have options to granularly dial down the “protection” or add a website to my trusted list. In Firefox I was annoyed to having go through settings for the extension.

Brave plans to continue supporting Manifest V2 after Google kills it. For Ungoogled Chromium, however, it’s still undecided, likely depending on whether UG contributors are willing to maintain it.

getting a developer account with redhat you can have up to 10(?) instances of RedHat Linux LTS. super stable, is run on servers for many critical serves. Or just use rocky linux (bug for bug compatible with red hat) and establish a roll back procedure. There are rollback options at the filesystem level so you can snapshot before an update.

I use fedora and I don’t typically have any issues and that is considered bleeding edge.

Macs have too many guardrails that get in the way which can be as disruptive as something breaking bc you need to work around it. But I am acknowledging that it is use case dependant.

using the settings you described ( minus the VPN ) I was not able to cloak myself over the past several days

Yes, some guy was streaming live on YouTube talking about a subject that he does not otherwise have, and he showed that before talking about the subject, there were no ads for dog toys, and after talking about dogs, there were ads about dog toys. The video isn’t really that great because he goes and clicks on an ad about a dog toy and proceeds to get more of them, so he kind of tainted his results.

I wish I didn’t waste my time watching this video

7 visits with brave, 7 times identified as the same. I’m using the default options of a fresh brave install

how did you have such success?

thanks for the masterclass in CF tunnels.

I am ready to accept everything you’ve said but there is the SSH case that keeps tripping me up. For reference, here is the CF docs on Connecting SSH through CF Tunnels.

Can you help me clear up the misunderstanding here? From the docs it appears you can create a SSH key pair on a client and then copy the public key to the server. It does not appear that the docs state you need to share those keys with CF, so I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that my session will be encrypted with my private key (on client) and public key (on server).

Again, what you said appears to make sense, perhaps SSH is the only edge case that is implemented differently?

hmm, I’m not sure I agree - or perhaps I didn’t explain myself well previously and caused confusion between us.

Yes I agree with you in your description of how cloudflare encrypts -> decrypts -> encrypts; they are allowing you to ride over their network. If you remove cloudflare from the picture entirely, then you just have the internet facing server.

What I’m saying is, if the client and endpoint (server) talk in an encrypted protocol, then cloudflare cannot MiTM the data, only the IP headers. This is similar if you were to connect to any ol’ website over an ISP’s network. If your session is not HTTPS, then your application data can be read. You can have encrypted sessions inside of CF tunnel-network-tunnel.

If your services support encryption, great. But you can also expose a wireguard endpoint so you have the following

wg client --(tunnel to CF)–> CF network --(tunnel to your server)–> wireguard server

the real advantage to CF tunnel is hiding your IP from the public internet, not poking any holes in your firewall for ingress traffic, and cloudflare can apply firewall rules to those clients trying to reach your server by DNS hostname.

thanks.

The last gleam of hope I had was last year when John Oliver did an episode on data brokers. He in turn went and purchased data that would match congressmen in the D.C. area, along with their “interests.” He jokingly threatened to release it (bc congressmen tend to act on an issue if it affects them personally). I thought that would be huge, everybody would see how rampant and invasive data collection would be. I was thrilled for a breakthrough.

but so far no movement, hasn’t been released. I wonder if people wrote to John Oliver and his team if we will get an answer haha

I feel so powerless, so hopeless.

Bills aren’t being passed by lawmakers because like many of us who care about privacy, they have not heard about the abilities of data brokers and have no visibility into how rampant and disgusting and invasive their behavior is.

Friends and family I talk to don’t care. “Oh well, what are they going to do, find me personally?”

I feel if people were able to look themselves up in these databases, they would fear it as well

interesting, I’ll have to read about this some more then. thanks for pointing me in the right direction

reminds me of the John Oliver episode on Data Brokers where he started buying up data on senators in an effort to get better regulations about tracking data and aggregation bc that seems to be the only way they want to pass bills. Their interests > interests of the people they should be representing

I apologize, I misread the chain of comments. Your explanation is perfectly adequate for someone who has a basic grasp on networking and VPN and tunnels and encryption.

I would just like to add that if your endpoints communicate via an encrypted transport (HTTPS, SSH, etc) then doesn’t matter if cloudflare tries to inspect your packets. There would be 2 layers of encryption while traversing the public web, then 1 layer when traversing CF’s network.

And to some, packet inspection is not a downside since they can offer more protection - but that is totally up to your attack vector tollerence

WARP (a client) just connects you to CF’s network.

If your server is running cloudflared (an outbound-only tunnel) then you can enroll your WARP client to reach your server, while your server is never accessible on the public web. That’s the principal behind Zero Trust.

While techinically yes, WARP can be considered as a VPN, it is just a secure tunnel to an endpoint. In which case you can argue any point-to-point tunnel is a VPN.

discovered tailscale from this post and after reading their “how tailscale works” I was hoping to get some clarification from an activer user (you).

CF tunnels setup an outbound-only tunnel from my private network via cloudflared, I have no ingress holes in my firewall to access my services. cloudflared does all the proxying. Plus my IP changes monthly as I don’t pay for a static one from my ISP. This “outbound-only” connection is resilient to that.

Tailscale is point-to-point (for data plane) connection and only the control plane is “hub and spoke”. This sounds like I need to allow ingress rules on my private network so my server can be connected to? Is this true or where did I misunderstand?