> The football league would rather not have pirates livestream their ~90 minute games.
Funny enough, I work in IT and I've had to use a VPN to be able to do my job when soccer is on, but my two non-tech-savy family members that do watch soccer using pirate livestreams say that they've never had any issues with blocked streams.
I work in IT and have found that the issue impacts my work but not my ability to stream sports from sites of questionable legality. Of course, I don't pirate La Liga matches but that's primarily because I don't give a shit about soccer.
But the point is that the measure does more to block legitimate use than illegitimate (in my experience). And next they want to go after VPNs. Wonderful.
They don't even "lose a small amount of money." They simply gain less money than usual for a short period of time. Think of how rough that is for them.
I think it's even that they "gain less money than they could if everyone watching illegally would pay for it when they could not watch illegally" (that's usually how companies crying "piracy" calculate "losses" — "let's assume everyone watching illegally would certainly still watch it and pay the full price").
This isn't quite right either. It's "they gain less money than they might potentially gain if piracy weren't physically possible". If the piracy avenues didn't exist, how many people would actually pay full price to the legitimate sources, and how many people would simply go without?
Arguably they even gain more money in the long run, because more people have access to their entertainment and they have more opportunities to form life long connections with consumers.
In all fairness, the Spanish economy is a mine, a farm and a soccer league in a trenchcoat. Better than Ireland which is 2 tax shelters in a trenchcoat, but not by much. Not surprisingly, they are the 2 most left leaning countries in Europe. To be fair, they had an actual fascist government in Spain for several decades and there were atrocities committed.
Ireland, the country with 2 center right parties that differ with regards to patronage networks and political history from 1940, is one of the most left-wing leaning countries in Europe?
Eh, ireland is unique in that it has a centre-right coalition making it de facto one party. The main opposition, Sinn Fein, is about the same size as Fine Gael and Fianna Fail and might overtake Fine Gael at some point
> Cloudflare would rather not block websites without a court order specifying the sites to be blocked.
why would they?
> squabble between two huge corporations
I think this is just LaLiga using it's cultural and economical power, don't think Cloudflare or the courts should be making exceptions just so they can control how people watch football
LaLiga isn't Cloudflare's customer. They have no relationship. So why would Cloudflare rework their infrastructure just to instrument rapid blocking at their own expense as a favor to LaLiga? And if they don't, ISPs just break the Internet for each soccer match? This is a kind of coercion that makes no sense. Cloudflare has no obligation like this to LaLiga (and neither would a Spanish domestic CDN!).
Cloudflare has not in fact refused to comply with any court orders! The very thing at issue is that LaLiga wants Cloudflare to do censorship on their behalf that Cloudflare, who has no contractual relationship with LaLiga, is not required to do by any legal framework in Spain or the US.
Cloudflare literally wasn't even a party to the ruling by which LaLiga has been compelling Spanish ISPs to do the IP-level blocking. They're just an affected third-party because the blocking scheme the courts have allowed LaLiga to impose on ISPs is on a per-IP basis.
Spain hasn't asked Cloudflare to do anything. Only LaLiga has acted like Cloudflare owes them a huge, expensive rework of their CDN's architecture for the purpose of censoring things for LaLiga purely as a favor to LaLiga. What LaLiga has over Cloudflare isn't a court order. It's a protection racket, or maybe a hostage situation, where court orders involving other parties are the gun held to the hostage's head.
> Cloudflare has not in fact refused to comply with any court orders!
Nor did I say they did.
The question was asked, "why would they [without an explicit order]" The answer is they probably shouldn't, but there's still an obvious incentive here.
I'm not sure why it shouldn't be cloudflare job to make sure they don't host illegal content. If my super market keeps distributing illegal goods, even if they remove it after a court order, they will end up having to close the whole market.
Either they should police the content they serve themselves or they accept the right holders to do it (which sucks for everyone).
Also they certainly willing take all their customers as hostage, as they could certainly split their network into legitimate customers and shaddy ones so the blocking is not so impactful, but I guess they prefer to make it as impactful as possible to be able to complain.
Anyone can report illegal content on Cloudflare and Cloudflare will remove it. The pirate streaming sites pop up only in or just before the first few moments of the game, and LaLiga insists they must be removed instantly in order to prevent their losses. So what they actually want is preemptive removal without meaningful human review or anything else that could take 10 minutes.
That involves more than being responsive when someone reports abusive content or dropping bad customers. That requires becoming a censorship machine that preemptively treats all new customers as criminals, and probably having some unaccountable AI drive the censorship process. (That latter seems to be what LaLiga is pushing Fastly to do.)
That's beyond the legal obligations of infrastructure platforms, bad for the reliability of their service, and just a slice of what they'd have to do to rework their architecture to support this kind of preemptive censorship.
> ” what they actually want is preemptive removal without meaningful human review or anything else that could take 10 minutes.”
Yet this would actually be a better solution for everyone (except the pirates).
10 minutes seems like a reasonable response time that would allow a chance for human review. No football fan wants to have their viewing interrupted because they used a dodgy pirate site to watch it. Currently, pirates can simply use a VPN to get around the IP-level block while the huge collateral damage affects legitimate Cloudflare users.
Plenty of companies proactively take action against shady users, even if not 100% required under law. Youtube has content id, social media companies have "community guidelines", and ISPs have AUPs.
technically, LaLiga themselves doesn't even do the blocking. They have a court order from some years ago that allows them to compel all the individual ISPs to block any IP addresses they specify, with no oversight or review
This must negatively impact a huge number of businesses. Is there no move for them to all get together to take legal action against LaLiga to stop them doing this?
This is the country that takes a 2 hour nap every day. They also have a sleeping contest every year with a winner and everything. And Spain isn't hot like Mexico where folks take 2 hours off in the topically heat and make it up for it in the evening because that's more efficient.
Calling on JD Vance and Elon as if they're known for a principled respect for free speech is crazy. It just reads as unnecessary propaganda or a poorly-disguised threat from powerful friends. I'm generally inclined to agree with Cloudflare here and the post makes me question that.
There are some sites that stream a pirate signal of the football matches, and they stream through Cloudflare proxied IPs. They share the IP with thousands if not millions of other sites.
When the match starts, Movistar (a big ISP, but also a TV platform that streams legally football matches) sues itself in the following terms: "we, Movistar TV, demand that Movistar ISP blocks the following IPs that are being used to stream our matches illegally", on a special and urgent procedure. The judge tells Movistar-ISP to block the IP, which they do in seconds. Now replace Movistar with the biggest ISPs in Spain, and you have more than 80% of the country with Internet capped for hours (except if you know how to use some kind of tunneling)
As the pirates share the IP with so many sites, because the IP is actually a Cloudflare proxy, a big chunk of the internet goes down. Users complains, and Movistar ask Cloudflare to block the real IP and spare the rest. Cloudflare says that they cannot legally do that as no judge actually told them to.
Our Spanish judges are historically inept when talking about copyright, internet, file sharing and similar stuff. Some of them might be more updated, but there has been cases that they ordered some publications to surrender their lithographic plates, because a cover has to be retired as late as 2007 (https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/07/20/espana/1184937587....). So I don't think they understand much more about what is an IP other than "a IP is a number assigned to a computer". And Movistar is quite happy with that.
> I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way,
I got yelled at very rudely the other day for overtaking a pedestrian without ringing my bell. I thought I had plenty of space, rode at an appropriate speed and didn't want to be rude, like you said, but I guess you can never please everyone.
It sounds silly, but apart from liking the sound, this is why I really like wheels with loud hubs.
I have a pair of Hunt wheels and they work fantastically, bonus points because they are “always on”, pedestrians are aware of them, but are never surprised.
See how your comment has inbuilt sass? It doesn’t matter what you consider plenty of space and an appropriate speed- if you startle me, I’m going to yell at you for not ringing a bell to let me know you were there.
Note that the worst kind of canal towpath cyclist is the one who slows to a crawl and creeps behind me for minutes sometimes unnoticed, biding their time for a passing spot with lots of space. Just ring the frigging bell and I will stand out of your way for the 3 seconds it takes you to get by!
You can, but instead you can also just squash merge in one click. And avoid that people merge there dozens of fixes if you allow anything but squash merge.
Nothing is destroyed by a force push. It just overwrites a single pointer, and even keeps its old value in reflog.
Things that aren't referenced by anything anymore will eventually get garbage collected and actually destroyed, but you can just keep a reference somewhere to prevent that from happening if you need. Or even disable garbage collection completely.
Looks like people's fears about git come just from not knowing what it does.
You can't use the remote reflog to revert what you force pushed, can you? But I agree that having your local reflog means you're never totally lost. I still just make a branch before major edits so I can go back.
No, but you have local reflogs of remote branches, and if you --force-with-lease you are guaranteed to have the old state stored there.
You can often also access equivalent functionality by platform APIs. For example, GitHub has event API which you can use to check what a ref has pointed to previously.
Trust isn't binary, it's a spectrum. A signature is a signal that should increase trustworthiness. Not the strongest signal, perhaps even a weak one, but it's not zero.
What would be the point? How would you prevent malware from being signed? Currently, code signatures are used as a signal for trustworthiness of the code.
Only signal is that whoever is in the subject DN (highly) probably signed the code. There's 0 signal about trustworthiness of the code in the signature. Thrustworthiness signal is in the behavior/reputation of the signer.
Pretty sure there were historically a lot of apps that stole peoples contact lists and were signed properly. Certainly in the Android world.
I use vim with docker compose all the time: Set up the compose file to bind-mount the repo inside the container, so you can edit files freely outside it, and add a convenience "make shell" that gets you inside the container for running commands (basically just "docker compose exec foo bash").
It sounds like if you make devcontainers point at an existing Dockerfile it should be easy to make these work together, so you and teammates both use the same configuration. I haven't used devcontainers though.
I'd prefer containers, because they are more light weight and I'm not too concerned about kernel exploits or other sandbox escapes. Configuring a container per project brings me right back to something like devcontainer. But I haven't figured out a good way to incorporate that into my vim/tmux workflow.
Hmm, maybe I misunderstood the point of the original comment. I thought the OP was suggesting using containers to isolate resources for development vs personal computing, for which I use a VM. But VMs don’t play nicely with IDEs (hence devcontainers).
> their flight plan was not communicated in advance to the Italian air force general staff, nor had the American aircraft received authorization to land,
Sounds like they might have gotten authorization if they had just told them in advance.
reply