They absolutely eat bread

By “they don’t” the person you’re replying to means “they shouldn’t”.

Search for “bread” and “birds” to find thousands of web pages explaining why bread is bad for birds and you should not feed it to them.

One shot rewriting the whole test suite

tridge’s blog post makes it clear that this was not “one-shotted” at all.

You should read the whole thread

I regret reading it; I’ll assume in good faith that it wasn’t LLM generated but it is ironically as confidently wrong as if it were.

It almost (and should have) lost me when it started by quote-agreeing with someone else saying “rsync was basically done until the maintainer discovered vibecoding” - no, pay attention, it was not “basically done”, there were/are a mountain of CVEs!

But then this got my interest:

This does not “translate tests into pytest” or a unit testing framework, it writes its own testing framework where tests are whole python scripts that redefine basic test functions in every script. Surely there would be a single way to “run rsync and get the results” - nope, well, there is, but then every test file will randomly redefine its own _run_and_capture function.

tridge says he has used pytest on other projects and had good reasons not to use it here; I’m inclined to believe him.

But the notion of every test defining its own way to invoke rsync sounded like a valid criticism, and an easy one to verify, so I checked: It turns out that there is in fact a common run_rsync function which is used by the majority of the tests. One test defines its own _run_and_capture function (which differs in that it writes the output to a file, for reasons I didn’t investigate), and it looks like a few others invoke rsync other ways, but the majority of them use the common function.

So, that rambling thread’s sole concrete criticism of rsync’s new python tests turns out to be false.

Mamdani signed an “executive order”

in comic sans

efforts to intervene, which range from removing perches to hormone treatment and surgery

wtf :(

The 2021 paper OSRM-CCTV: Open-source CCTV-aware routing and navigation system for privacy, anonymity and safety says they published source code at https://github.com/Fuziih but I don’t see it there now (though there is a related project called cctv-exposure).

The final published version of the paper seems to be paywalled; it’s probably on scihub but there is also a preprint of it here on arxiv.

https://github.com/FNBIP/ghost-route (just 3 commits, from February this year) says it is inspired by the paper and “extended to a production-grade multi-mode threat routing system”. It’s a node app you run locally (there doesn’t appear to be a public instance currently) which would be nice if it could work offline but unfortunately “Offline mode with pre-downloaded OSM tiles” is still on the roadmap and it currently lists “A Mapbox GL JS token (free tier works)” as a requirement (which is probably why there isn’t a public instance - someone would need to pay mapbox if they wanted to run it for other people).

I have not tried it; if anyone reading this has or does please post here about how it works!

🎶 it gives you that fuzzy feeling 🎶

“lmao”?

I think you’ve misunderstood me :)

I am advocating for having some sympathy for the guy working for free, and pointing out that your capacity for saying “just fork it” most likely does not translate into capacity to actually fork it.

literally free software with a free licence… just fork it

maintaining a fork is a lot of work and currently there is nobody even helping review commits in the mainline version.

i am also disgusted by the use of discord but i recommend reading tridge’s messages yesterday in this log of the rsync discord for some context about recent events.

tldr: it isn’t that he just decided to start changing things using claude and broke a bunch of stuff; the bugs he introduced recently are side effects of security fixes for the onslaught of security vulnerabilities which other people are finding using LLMs.

sure.

The visual option is the normal reCAPTCHA (eg) and the audio option is the (quite difficult) thing they’ve been subjecting blind people to for years. Presumably they will keep offering desktop users these options (at least in many/most cases) for a long time still; this new phone-required extra-invasive CAPTCHA is just a hint of where they’re heading. (But already it is apparently actually required for Android users in some cases: https://reclaimthenet.org/google-broke-recaptcha-for-de-googled-android-users …)

Is this something that websites opt into and add to their own site?

Yes.

reCAPTCHA is google’s “anti-abuse” service which many websites use to prevent slightly increase the cost of operating automated crawlers (which somewhat ironically google operates one of the largest of itself, for their search engine).

Before neural networks could solve CAPTCHAs reliably, spammers were solving them with human labor; solving services like anti-captcha.com (intentionally not a clickable link…) today use a mixture of automated and human solvers.

In the future google is apparently building, solving services will need farms of able-to-run-a-recent-android-release mobile devices with some kind of trusted computing hardware, each one of which they’ll have to use sparingly enough to keep usage of its unique ID under some plausibly-human threshold.

And even if you do have a phone and are willing to identify yourself with it, if it is too old to run a recent enough Android you also will sometimes be denied services for being unable to pass a robots’ “human” test.

🤮

Any website using this will simply cease to exist in my eyes.

as i wrote in another recent thread on this topic:

for some reCaptcha-using websites there actually aren’t alternatives. eg many governments, healthcare providers, public utilities, etc are using it :(

I would guess not, given the other recent news about degoogled Android devices also being unable to pass reCAPTCHA.

Remind me again the last time Canada invaded/attacked another country??

Sure. In the last couple of decades the Canadian Armed Forces have actively participated in the US’s attacks in (at least) Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, and Yemen.

They also have troops stationed in many other countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_military_operations

some kind of driver problem?

no, i think it is real and the person who made this report just assumed that it wasn’t.

my cross-post of it includes additional information i found while looking in to it.

🤔