When Spain blocks CF (it does this regularly), it breaks all CF sites. Of course, the actual problem here is organised crime. Spain and Italy do this because the mafia owns them.
> When Spain blocks CF (it does this regularly), it breaks all CF sites. Of course, the actual problem here is organised crime. Spain and Italy do this because the mafia owns them.
Mafia has a vested interest in broadcast rights of football matches in Spain?
Spain blocks Cloudflare because the football league La Liga has a court order that allows them to point to IP ranges that are hosting/fronting live streams of football matches, and get ISPs to block access to those ranges.
If the sports league is influential enough to have a standing court order to be able to unilaterally block IP ranges for the entire country, I'd imagine that organized crime might take an interest. I have no idea if it's the case but when something already seems to have an outsized influence it wouldn't be crazy to imagine that others interested in that power would also take an interest.
Moreover, I think the point of the parent comment is that they're blocking quite a bit more than just football games. It sounds like the claim is that the blocking is willfully broad because of other influences, not necessarily the the purported more narrow intent is necessarily from those influences.
More than mafia, ex-francoists oligarchs. And these could be stomped down tomorrow from CF by cancelling all the tangent services for those, even for Spanish banks and related industries (tourist and construction avoiding both attacks and serious disbalancing harms). The Ibex 35 would near collapse overnight and Tebas being kicked out from their own people.
I did it and I was just hacked because of a CVE on my pangolin reverse proxy!
Sadly, I didn't knew of the CVE soon enough and I only noticed when a crypto malware took my fan 100% all day long...
Maybe solving more trivial problems with AI will left novice programmer to do more depth problems and will make them better faster, because they will spend time solving problems that matter.
That is possible, for sure. But think of it like a person learning the piano. You could practice your arpeggios on a Steinway, or you can buy a Casio with an arpeggiator button.
At a certain point, the professional piano player can make much better use of the arpeggiator button. But the novice piano player benefits greatly from all the slogging arpeggio practice. It's certainly possible that skipping all that grunt work will improve and/or advance music, but it's hardly a sure thing. That's the experiment we're running right now with AI programming. I suppose we'll see soon enough, and I hope I'm utterly wrong about the concerns I have.
I think it would help to open an issue on github making explicit the following three points explicit in the report:
- steps to reproduce from scratch;
- what you expected to happen;
- what you actually observed (include the screenshot or video capture in addition to a textual description).
Otherwise, you might risk your report being ignored due to a silent misunderstanding about the mismatch between your expectations and the actual results.
At the time i wasn't sure if it was PEBCAK, which is why i started a discussion in the forums. As there were no replies, i received no notifications, and so I forgot all about it.
Personally, I do not understand why you think there is a bug from this screen capture alone. Maybe because I am that familiar with penpot and figma, but still, I do not find it obvious.
This is why it's important to describe explicitly the three points in text:
- steps to reproduce;
- what you expected to happen;
- what actual result you observe instead.
Something that might be obvious to you but isn't for others will just be silently ignored most of the time.
EDIT: I now see the problem after reading your other reply above:
This is why it's important to describe explicitly the difference between what you expected and what you observed. I swear I did not see the change in button width before reading the linked comment.
> There's actually a lot more visual changes than that just the button, but I will leave that to the reader as an exercise in spot-the-difference ;)
This is fair. But issues like this will never get my attention in general because I don’t have time to do this exercise - I would much rather have it all spelled out. Even if there are a bunch of related issues they won’t get fixed in a single PR, it likely will be multiple.
I guess my point is that if you really want OSS projects to improve, the issue submitter can’t just ask the maintainer “figure it out”. It totally works this way in the corporate world though (IME).
Edit: I’m sorry to have jumped to conclusions. Leaving my comment up for accountability.
I didn’t ask the maintainer to “figure it out”. I posted a thread in the forum with multiple videos to start a discussion.
People here have stated I should have filed on GitHub, and because I don’t want to link my GitHub to this account I suggested someone else do it.
That was 6 hours ago, and people are still commenting about my lack of a suitable report rather than actually reporting it correctly themselves - as is evident by the lack of a new issue on the github.
> I swear I did not see the change in button width before reading the linked comment.
I didn’t either! I stared at that gif for a few minutes and I couldn’t tell what the problem is (or what to look for). It wasn’t until you said “changing button width” I knew where to focus my attention.
I hate how every time someone even talks about an issue with an open source project, some smart alec replies "well did you raise an issue?" - or worse - "did you send a PR to fix it?".
We are all very aware how bug reporting works. And user criticism of bugs isn't somehow invalidated just because the users didn't go to the sometimes very large effort to report bugs.
I wouldn't have reported this bug either. If the example documents are getting corrupted just by navigating them that indicates that it's just a really buggy project (corroborated by other comments here) that I'm not even going to use, so why would I spend my time working on it?
I opened an issue based on the discussion here and it didn't take much time or effort.
(It was one of those form-based issue templates that requires you to explicitly list out Steps to Reproduce, Expected behavior, Actual behavior, OS version, etc. which IMO causes slightly more friction for anyone who knows how to put together a good bug report, but I've also seen enough poorly-specified issues to know that it's necessary sometimes)
I can see both sides of the dilemma and I don't necessarily like when a maintainer defaults to "open a PR" but asking for a reproducible issue wherever requested is not too much to ask.
With a PR I understand not wanting to put the effort in as it may not be merged. But offering up a reproducible example on the correct forum is the least you could do. If you want the problem fixed that's the best way forward.
> This system won't run FIFA, GTA Online, Battlefield, Valorant or CoD, it's a nonstarter for many.
That's largely known now but still a bummer.
I wonder if anything will ever change in this area and if Valve will be able to pressure game editors or create an anti-cheat so good and for any platform to be able to change something.
reply