I went back to the $20 plan and a single prompt maxed out my quota for the five hour window within 15 minutes. I used to be able to vibe code for over an hour before. This is really annoying.
I believe that routine in general helps a ton. Go to sleep at the same time, eat at the same time, go for a walk at the same time, etc. You will wake up at the same time as a side effect. At least that's what happened to me during covid, when there were no obligations outside of working hours. During normal times, I will stay up late one or two days a week for social events or have to get up early for travel. That messes with your rhythm, almost like being jet lagged.
Even Windows admins often wait a while after the release of an update so they don't get a bad update from Microsoft, which is a real concern unfortunately.
Also, what even is "a negative"? The following statements are equivalent:
"There are no squares with diagonals of different lengths"
"All squares have diagonals of equal lengths"
Similarly, I can rephrase the statement about the absence of bugs. These are equivalent:
"This program has no bugs"
"This program always does exactly what it is supposed to do"
If you think you can't prove the first statement, then go ahead and prove the second one.
Are people thinking of falsification when talking about "proving negatives"? I.e. you can only falsify statements about the physical world, never prove them.
"This program has no bugs"
"This program always does exactly what it is supposed to do"
I believe these are not the same in software: bugs are not just wrongly implemented requirements, but also missed requirements or constraints (one can claim these are new features, but the fact that ID looped around at 65536 is going to be called a bug by users).
If there is a footgun I haven't considered yet in backup exclusions, I'd like to know more. Shouldn't it be safe to exclude $XDG_CACHE_HOME? Unfortunately, since many applications don't bother with the XDG standard, I have to exclude a few more directories, so if you have any stories about unexpected exclusions, would you mind sharing?
I don't remember why I started doing it, but I don't bulk exclude .cache for some reason or other. I have a script that strips down larger known caches as part of the backup. But the logic, whatever it was, is easy to understand: you're relying on apps to correctly categorise what is vs. isn't cache.
Also consider e.g. ~/.cache/thumbnails. It's easy to understand as a cache, but if the thumbnails were of photos on an SD card that gets lost or immediately dies, is it still a cache? It might be the only copy of some once-in-a-lifetime event or holiday where the card didn't make it back with you. Something like this actually happened to me, but in that case, the "cache" was a tarball of an old photo gallery generated from the originals that ought to have been deleted.
It's just really hard to know upfront whether something is actually important or not. Same for the Downloads folder. Vendor goes bankrupt, removes old software versions, etc. The only safe thing you can really do is hold your nose and save the whole lot.
> 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
Right. So, no left wing party, not even a center left party, has been in power in Ireland in its history. But I'm supposed to believe that it's one of the most left wing countries in Europe?
> 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.
reply