Is that remotely plausible? I can't imaging faking a scan being easier than just walking down the hall to the copier room.
Or are they doing a pharma and have repatented a small variation, or the European equivalent is still going?
Or is it actually trademark that is being enforced here?
[1] https://www.chaillot.com/ip-news/validity-of-3d-trademarks-f...
1. BusyBox is a single executable that executes different commands based on which symlink was used to call it
2. Bash puts itself into compatibility mode if invoked as "sh"
3. "ping" can be invoked as "ping4" or "ping6"
4. Some of git's subcommands are symlinks back to the main executable
5. Clang switches to C++ mode if invoked as "clang++"
6. AppArmor profiles activate on file paths
The tracking not malicious. YouTube has a legitimate interest to verify views, e.g. to recommend popular videos to others. If a view counter was increased by just invoking an API, view counts could be manipulated easily. Also see the video [1] from ... 13 years ago ... so it might be slighly outdated. Just slightly.
anubis directly incentivises the adversary, at expense of everyone else
it's what you would deploy if you want to exclude everyone else
(conspiracy theorists note that the author worked for an AI firm)
> This ticket is rather long and has a lot of irrelevant content regarding this new topic. If I need to bring in a colleague I do not want them to have to wade through all the irrelevant context. If you would like, please open a new issue with regards to how we support middlebox compatibility.
The author turns this into:
> The GitHub issue comment left at the end leads me to believe that they aren't really interested in RFC compliance. There isn't a middleground here or a "different way" of implementing middlebox compatibility. It's either RFC compliant or not. And they're not.
This is a bad-faith interpretation of the maintainer's response. They only asked to open a new, more specific issue report. The maintainer always answered within minutes, which I find quite impressive (even after the author ghosted for months). The author consumed the maintainer's time and shouldn't get the blame for the author's problems.
[1]: https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/issues/9156