Most of the time, I think my synchronization algorithm is actually sub-1ms, but it can be worse depending on unstable network conditions.
Most of the time, I think my synchronization algorithm is actually sub-1ms, but it can be worse depending on unstable network conditions.
The data for The Stack’s dataset is sourced from the Software Heritage Archive, so checking that is redundant. We need different sources.
Now, this is only about it being a GitHub breach. Whether unlicensed (emenel/portfolio) or GPL (emenel/dust) code should be allowed in such datasets is a different matter.
[1] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory...
[2] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory...
[3] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/visits/?o...
Shadow and Bone is far from being a best anything.
It might not be to your liking, but it's been in Netflix's top 10 lists [2] quite a few times.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/sha...
PS. Demoscene is by far the best thing to ever come out of computing, as a whole.
[1] Highlighted comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHFSrxlouh8&lc=UgxI33WIYq61V...
You can still use `onMount`. It's not deprecated [2], although `$effect` could be used similarly going forward.
[1] https://svelte-5-preview.vercel.app/docs/functions#untrack
[2] https://svelte-5-preview.vercel.app/docs/runes#$effect-what-...
How do you manage to require "a handful of clicks" to do it?
It's still a pretty minor warning and it only requires two clicks to ignore.
However, this is on Github. Github specifically has a "DMCA Takedown Policy" [1]. I don't believe they have any other policy or procedure involving a "takedown notice". But sure, I could be wrong, or the notice on the repo could be not quite right about what's going on.
Other companies, even big ones, will just take down anything a big corporation asks them to, with no written policy or a written policy basically saying that's what they'll do, while using language implying the DMCA (like "takedown notice"), when that's not what they're doing at all. But Github has actually been pretty good at actually doing this according to the procedure spelled out in DMCA, and not just randomly for whatever another big corporation might want. And being clear about what they're doing why if they're doing something else.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
> We got a takedown request by openai's legal team...
Did Github take a separate action somewhere?
The last point is actually the one I'm trying to make.
Folks around here are generally uneasy about tracking in general too, but remove big brother monitoring from Safe Browsing and this story could still be the same: whole domain blacklisted by Google, only due to manual reporting instead.
"Oh, but a human reviewer would've known `*.statichost.eu` isn't managed by us"—not in a lot of cases, not really.