I've noticed the frontend hammering the backend quite often in the past few weeks. It would not surprise me at all to learn that the "influx of scraping" was mostly Twitter's fault.
I noticed the frontend hammering the backend for the past few weeks, so I suspect that these new rate limits are a response to that, even if Musk wouldn't publicly admit it.
I don't doubt that Twitter saw a massive increase in traffic recently, but I feel at least somewhat confident that it's mostly self-inflicted on Twitter's part.
What unfair advantage is gained by using GitHub to store the code? A privately hosted Gitea instance would have accomplished exactly the same thing without technically breaking a rule.
I would understand this point if they were leveraging Actions or something, but that isn’t mentioned so I’ll assume that is not the case. Their usage of GitHub does not appear to have been anything more than a convenient repository host.
The students were neither ignorant nor arrogant for interpreting the rules as they did. The person who graded their submission is at fault here, and the students deserve to be told this if they’re reading these comments.
Someone who doesn’t know the difference between hosting a git repo and generating a static site with GitHub is unqualified to judge this project. The real lesson for these students is that there are people in this field who don’t really know what they are doing.
I'm instantly reminded of Eminem when reading your comment. Perhaps his subject material isn't to your tastes, but if you like interesting rhyme schemes I'd argue that his works are top notch!
His 1996 song "Infinite" could please your ear, if you'd care to listen :)
Why is there no footage from any of the multiple cameras on the Tesla that was allegedly attacked? It would be trivial for him to obtain that if it exists.
But no video of the incident actually taking place. Quite surprising that Elon apparently is not aware of the dozen or so cameras on a car made by the company he owns!
> So it seems like the sole basis for this action is TrustCor's mere affiliation with another company that does TLS interception?
The CA representative was presented with the challenge of proving their CA should be trusted, and failed it. This isn't a case of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" as in a criminal trial, so looking at it through that lens isn't very helpful.
I think it is reasonable to conclude from Rachel's communications that TrustCor cannot be clearly identified as a trustworthy root CA, and thus they have been removed.
> Microsoft wants people to register online [...] in order to increase the market share of the Windows app store and other Microsoft online services
> So it's not malicious
I would have to firmly disagree there. Microsoft are pushing the notion that an online account with some identity provider is a necessity for home computing by hiding the (perfectly functional) option to create a local account.