Nice windup but I'll take the bait. It's hardly the same, is it? Doing something known to be very safe versus doing something known to be very dangerous, knowing full well that you're violating the law. What do you propose instead?
That sounds nice in practice, but in our post-truth, post-evidence world I am not sure what else we can do. It's impossible to dissuade some of these people and many people viewing YouTube are vulnerable to falling for their bullshit.
How would it work if you had a VPN and a private certificate installed on your browser?
1. Traffic encrypted in browser using SSL
2. Traffic routed to VPN server
3. Traffic routed to target web server over public internet*
4. Back to VPN server
5. Back to browser
*I assume at this point the Kazakh government can intercept the traffic and decrypted the HTTPS traffic, but that would itself be garbage because it's been encrypted by the VPN. Is this correct?
Your comment made me look into this in further detail and you may be right; it seems the situation isn't as bad as it once was.
> in April 2018, when the high court found the government’s power to order private companies to store communications data, including internet history, to be in breach of citizens' right to privacy.
It seems the original proposal has been watered down and then challenged in court. I'm wondering if someone more knowledgable can chime in.
Still, I don't want some government agency to be able to pull my entire browsing history, now or in the future.
My main reason for using a proxy is to prevent my government from tracking and logging all my internet activity (when you look at the huge list of agencies the UK government has allowed access to that information you can see why).
I skimmed through this article but I don't think it addressed this use case. Sure, my VPN could be tracking me, but I have much more trust in Mozilla than I do any other internety company. This article seems to be arguing that because perfect browsing privacy isn't possible that you might as well not bother with any.
Achieving the parallax seems to be easy enough, but combining it with all these aminations seems a bit more tricky. The animations are more complex than animate.css's approach of just animating when the component is displayed - you can play the animation in reverse by scrolling up rather than down.
I've seen the New York Times and BBC produces stories told in that parallax / animated type way and it's very effective. I'm guessing therefore that they use a standard parallax approach and them one or more animation libraries together; I was hoping there was one neat library that brought it all together but maybe that's asking for too much.
This kind of design has its place but this probably isn't it.
I am curious what they've used to achieve the endless scrolling type parallax. A while back I looked for libraries to achieve this and didn't find anything other than fullPage.js which doesn't seem to have an option for this (only full page transitions).
The fix for this is supposed to be go to into your Android settings and turn off battery optimization for Google Home and each app you cast.
It didn't work for me but loads of people reported success with it. It's a shame because I loved the Chromecast but had the exact same issue as you describe.
How relevant is architecture for someone like me - a 5-10 years of experience dev who has worked in non-managerial developer positions in small teams.
When I look at architecture patterns I feel so much of it is aimed at enormous projects, in which case I think you need actual experience of working in an enormous project alongside others from whom you can learn rather than just reading it from a book.
And there's so much difference between them.. which is the "right" one? Is Robert C. Martin's "Clean Architecture" approach right in condition X, or some other approach in condition Y?