avidamoeba

What does this mean, that the use plain HTTP or some other protocol? I can't see details.

Yes they're TOTP codes and Ticketmaster gives you the secret. You do in fact have the ticket.

In the blog post, Conduition explains that, essentially, these tickets work in the same way as two-factor authentication codes in authenticator apps. These are called “Time-based One-Time Passwords,” and can be generated offline (like a 2FA code). Ticketmaster basically shares a secret, unique token with the person who bought the ticket. This token allows the Ticketmaster app to generate a “new” ticket every 15 seconds based on the time of day. Once the device has this token, it is possible to generate the tickets no matter whether it's online or not. As Conduition found, if you’ve bought a ticket, this token can be extracted from within the Ticketmaster app (or, in some cases, from Ticketmaster’s desktop website), exported to a third-party platform, and tickets can then be generated on that third-party platform.

Sure, makes sense from that perspective. 👌

From. Nosedive to be specific.

Capitalists have captured regulation and to a large extent democracy in the US. So finger pointing towards them is entirely useful. Especially given they spend good money to point the finger at us.

Not exactly what you're asking for, but I'll share what I do. I'm using SaltStack to do config management and one of my salt states brings all packages up to date. This is done every 24 hours. I'm not suggesting you install SaltStack just for that but rather pointing out for people who use config management tools that those might be able to handle unattended upgrades.

Ignore the noise and use Ubuntu LTS. Subscribe for the free Ubuntu Pro service. This is something you do not get on Debian. Enjoy boring, trouble-free operation.

If you're hell bent on not using Ubuntu, use Debian. Enjoy boring, trouble-free operation.

In either case, use Docker. I don't know what the version of Docker is in Debian but in Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, it's recent enough so you don't have to f around with third party repos.

I see this parroted now and then. Often the people I've heard it from are the type of folks who would drastically underestimate the complexity and effort needed to make things. I've also seen and worked on codebases made by such folks and usually it ain't pretty, or maintainable, or extensible, or secure, or [insert fav cut corners here].

That actually makes the most sense. So similar to how Linux was started.

I think it was a general "when you leave Canada" policy.

I guess Chromium isn't fully BSD. This could be the reason. Although I'd think reimplementing the non-BSD bits in Chromium would be less work than reimplementing all the bits, including the BSD ones.

Why are open source software monocultures bad? The vast majority of non-Windows OSes are Linux based. Teams who don't like certain decisions of the mainline Linux team maintain their forks with the needed changes.

Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.

And we could get a functional one today by forking Chromium and never accepting a single upstream patch thereafter. I find it really hard to believe that starting a browser engine from scratch would require less labor. This is why I'm looking for an alternative motive. Someone mentioned licensing.

Perhaps some folks just want to do more work to write a new browser engine. After all Linus did just that, instead of forking the BSD kernel.