If you’re deliberately belittling me I won’t engage. Goodbye.

“You criticize society yet you participate in it. Curious.”

To be clear, I am not minimizing the problems of scrapers. I am merely pointing out that this strategy of proof-of-work has nasty side effects and we need something better.

These issues are not short term. PoW means you are entering into an arms race against an adversary with bottomless pockets that inherently requires a ton of useless computations in the browser.

When it comes to moving towards something based on heuristics, which is what the developer was talking about there, that is much better. But that is basically what many others are already doing (like the “I am not a robot” checkmark) and fundamentally different from the PoW that I argue against.

Go do heuristics, not PoW.

It depends on the website’s setting. I have the same phone and there was one website where it took more than 20 seconds.

The power consumption is significant, because it needs to be. That is the entire point of this design. If it doesn’t take significant a significant number of CPU cycles, scrapers will just power through them. This may not be significant for an individual user, but it does add up when this reaches widespread adoption and everyone’s devices have to solve those challenges.

It is basically instantaneous on my 12 year old Keppler GPU Linux Box.

It depends on what the website admin sets, but I’ve had checks take more than 20 seconds on my reasonably modern phone. And as scrapers get more ruthless, that difficulty setting will have to go up.

The Cryptography happening is something almost all browsers from the last 10 years can do natively that Scrapers have to be individually programmed to do. Making it several orders of magnitude beyond impractical for every single corporate bot to be repurposed for.

At best these browsers are going to have some efficient CPU implementation. Scrapers can send these challenges off to dedicated GPU farms or even FPGAs, which are an order of magnitude faster and more efficient. This is also not complex, a team of engineers could set this up in a few days.

Only to then be rendered moot, because it’s an open-source project that someone will just update the cryptographic algorithm for.

There might be something in changing to a better, GPU resistant algorithm like argon2, but browsers don’t support those natively so you would rely on an even less efficient implementation in js or wasm. Quickly changing details of the algorithm in a game of whack-a-mole could work to an extent, but that would turn this into an arms race. And the scrapers can afford far more development time than the maintainers of Anubis.

These posts contain links to articles, if you read them you might answer some of your own questions and have more to contribute to the conversation.

This is very condescending. I would prefer if you would just engage with my arguments.

On the contrary, I’m hoping for a solution that is better than this.

Do you disagree with any part of my assessment? How do you think Anubis will work long term?

I get that website admins are desperate for a solution, but Anubis is fundamentally flawed.

It is hostile to the user, because it is very slow on older hardware andere forces you to use javascript.

It is bad for the environment, because it wastes energy on useless computations similar to mining crypto. If more websites start using this, that really adds up.

But most importantly, it won’t work in the end. These scraping tech companies have much deeper pockets and can use specialized hardware that is much more efficient at solving these challenges than a normal web browser.

He knows that peacefully voting is the only way to bring down the fascist Trojans.

If a government is fighting for survival while it has a bunch of horrible weapons lying around like I described, they are absolutely going to use them. No question about it. That’s why you should ban the development and production of these things even in peacetime and that’s why international treaties are so important.

The mod log is public: https://lemmy.world/modlog/2840

But that’s assuming you actually want to know and aren’t just posting this to create drama.

Your premise is that these countries have a binary choice between either using mines in a “responsible” way or be conquered by Russia which uses mines in a bad way.

This is a fallacy because there are in fact many other plausible outcomes:

• Using mines is not necessary to repel a Russian attack. Russia is currently very weakened by its war in Ukraine and NATO has significantly more material and spending (even without the US). It’s totally possible to work towards peace without resorting to these barbaric weapons.
• It’s theoretically possible that a country uses mines and still gets conquered. Mines aren’t as useful as they were 100 years ago.
• It is unlikely that this country would only use mines in a “responsible” way as you describe. Armies do extreme things when faced with an invasion and any such reservations will quickly be cast aside if it provides a strategic advantage.

Not disappear entirely, but most households won’t own desktop computers or HDDs.

Chemical warfare? Cluster munitions? Bombing of population centers?

The point of international law on warfare is that they apply to everyone regardless of circumstances. What you’re suggesting is war crimes in self-defense.

That’s clearly a false dichotomy.

I can fix her

As I understand these NSF-funded research projects are only part of the entire curriculum. So it would be a misrepresentation to say that the US is “getting rid of” these students. They will still study and get a degree, they’ll just have a harder time finding an appropriate research project. That’s still bad, but not the same as what is claimed by the tweet.

How is the price of a cryptocoin even relevant to this post?

The tweet gave me the impression that these people lose their jobs. But it turns out that’s not entirely true, because it also counts undergrad and preK students who participate in a program one way or another. That’s still bad, but not as bad as the tweet suggests. Surely there is a better way to represent the budget request?

But seemingly most of these numbers are students?

OIP is just a branch of Elbit, so yes 100% of profits go to a company fueling genocide. I don’t see you dispute that.

OIP doesn’t even claim that these protestors destroyed equipment destined for Ukraine (nor is there any corroborating evidence), only that it was delayed.