Not a nothingburger. Propagation may take a while for normal configuration changes, but a revoked key is not a normal configuration change and absolutely requires a different approach so that it doesn't take more than seconds to show up.

If, for example, Twitter pre-Musk can show a new tweet to a follower within seconds of it being posted, Google can implement a key revokation propagation protocol that's just as fast. Twitter was transmitting millions of messages every hour, the # of key revokations is probably in the hundreds at most.

Scalping isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. You own the ticket, you should be able to do what you want with it, including reselling it.

And no, getting rid of scalpers wouldn't make ticket prices higher. Scalpers exist because the concert ticket prices are lower than what the market will actually bear. If a theater full of people are willing to pay 1K for a concert and they sell the ticket for 500, a scalper can make a profit via arbitrage. The only actual way to get rid of scalpers is to raise the prices to the sky (like 2-5x current prices) and slowly bring down prices over time until they're all sold. But my guess is you probably wouldn't like that any better, as the end price would likely be higher than the current scalpers price.

You can, but it'll be a while. You wouldn't believe the number of red-ring-of-death XBoxes piled up inside and outside his office he needs to fix first.

Well, in the past it was owned by various groups, including but not limited to:

- Millionaires

- Publicly traded Corporations

- Trusts built around the interests of journalists. ...etc...

Right now, ABC/Disney and NBC are the only two major media groups not owned by billionaires more or less directly. Even they have to deal with billionaire-owned TV networks who they're reliant upon to franchise their content - hence the temporary cancellation of Kimmel. And despite 30-40 years of propaganda claiming otherwise, corporate media like ABC/NBC is not really a second voice. It parrots the same talking points as CBS and Fox, the Bezos Post, and so on, 90% of the time, because the interests of big business and billionaires are usually aligned. The main difference is that NBC and ABC at least recognize that treating sections of society as anything but human beings is... bad for business, and that some level of truth is needed to ensure their output commands some respect, while Fox and CBS know they'll only get funding if they repeat their master's basest prejudices.

We're not living in the 1990s any more. Hell, the 1990s weren't the 1990s, but consolidation and the emergence of uncontrolled, psychotic, billionaires, has really fucked things up, the media included.

WebAssembly is technically an answer as it first appeared about nine years ago, but it was widely discussed before that. WebRTC dates back to 2011. Can't find a date on flexboxes but I see blog articles from 2013(!) on that. CSS grid is more recent, as are CSS variables - long after SCSS became standard because everyone got fed up of waiting - but I agree with the GP, is any of the actually more recent stuff actually necessary?

Of all of the above, WebAssembly is kinda useful, (and WebRTC fills a hole but is pretty old now.) The rest? They're just different ways to achieve things you could already achieve.

I think there's a case for arguing the core web standards went wrong at some point in the late 1990s, and became more and more bloated without adding significant functionality with each generation. A web browser has roughly a subset of the functionality as Microsoft Word - it's a rich text viewer with scripting and network connectivity. Yet Microsoft Word requires a maximum of tens of megabytes of RAM per document. And arguably Word is more powerful.

Maybe it's time we reset and started again. Freeze the standard for HTML, and create a new format (WPDL - web page description language?) that's lighter and less confusing to render. Browsers might even start being consistent if we did that.

Thanks, yeah, I'd seen that before, but I also know it's heavily reliant on everyone else's engines. But is definitely worth supporting even if it's not quite where I'd want to go (which I'm not sure of yet.)

> I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen some form of cooperative / community driven web search alternatives pop up.

This is what I was originally getting at. I've been trying to figure out a way to think of some kind of semi-selfhosted/federated/etc technology that could be an alternative to Google, but right now I'm not finding anything that's practical. And the usual alternatives people who aren't idiots like the one who thought I'd never heard of webcrawlers (WTF?) come up with are things like "Just use DuckDuckGo! They're not evil!" - because apparently Google was "evil" from the start ;-)

It'll be a complicated project, especially as anything public domain can be examined for ways to game it. Every time I think of something, it ends up being "Sure, but this relies upon webmaster cooperation", or "Sure, but this involves trusting people that can't necessarily be trusted". But there has to be a way!

What exactly are you proposing here that I'm too "dumb" to know? That every single person who wants to get away from Google should run their own webcrawler to populate a local database?

Do you seriously think that this is practical in any way at all? Do you know how large the world wide web is right now?

It's not "AI search", it'd be useful if it was. One genuinely legitimate use of LLMs would be to filter search results so that when, for example, I search for something like "Linux DAAP client" it doesn't give me a list of DAAP servers and pages on how to set up DAAP servers and so on because webpages that talk about setting up servers inevitably include the word "client" in them for obvious reasons.

What Google have been doing instead is more LLMsplaining. You ask it for help finding something and instead of helping it inserts its annoying and frequently inaccurate opinions in and only reluctantly will actually give you access to the things you actually asked for.

Google have decided that that really loud guy in the office who insists on giving you - well, everyone - his opinion on everything is a role model, not an annoying useless tosser.

Their search engine has been steadily decreasing in usefulness ever since Google+, but for some reason their competitors just keep copying them.

I've been wondering for a while (and not come up with any solutions) if we could at least create a practical "self hosted" (quotes because obvs it'll be impractical to do that literally) search engine technology so we can start getting Google et al out of the equation if we don't want it, even if everyone else just slavishly uses the big corps systems. It doesn't have to be a one for one match, just something that spits out a list of useful websites when you ask it a question. But... no idea how to make it work, at least not without the cooperation of a whole bunch of groups who won't cooperate.

That should be "<subject> wikipedia" in that last bit, Slashdot ate the brackets.

> So? The Linux kernel folks patched within hours or days.

Thank God that's all that's necessary and means we immediately get the updates to our computers without even having to reboot. There are no middle men between those plucky fast acting Linux kernel folks and me too, which also helps. Unlike Windows where... oh wait, no, it's the other way around isn't it?

Seriously gweihir, I'm sure you have your heart in the right place, and I run GNU/Linux (Debian) myself, but stop with this fucking nonsense that GNU and Linux people are somehow the only ones who "care" about security and Microsoft doesn't care at all. There are clear reasons why Windows has vulnerabilities more frequently than GNU/Linux, and they aren't because Microsoft doesn't care about it.

Likewise the GNU/Linux folks, especially the kernel people - a sizable number of which have conniptions when you just ask them to maybe work with people who are trying to introduce better security and use more solid programming languages than C - are not far more security focused. They benefit from having more eyes on their work, but most are just trying to get a device driver to work or make something a little faster. The userland people aren't much better - these are people who don't see the problem in throwing out wholesale decades of well tested code in order to "improve" security because they don't have the brains to figure out how to graft a security layer onto X11 when it's never been easier to do so.

We're going to be picking through Wayland related CVEs for the next 20 years.

The GNOME/Wayland people in particular are more unserious about security than Microsoft is.

I did. I didn't find anything. But Google is crap these days, so I'd rather ask experts. Have you used Google recently? It's even worse than it was 5 years ago, and it was pretty fucking close to useless back then for anything except getting celebrity news or " wikipedia".

With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".

Linux can. Linux can .Use Linux

That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!

Do you like open sourcing plan?

I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.

Would you like to free source share?

I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?

I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?

Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.

I would not, could not, in our biz.

You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!

I would not, could not if it's free. Not in our biz! It should never be!

I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!

service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?

Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?

I would not, could not, in copyleft.

Would you, could you, why so nervous?

I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!

You do not like open sourcing plan?

I do not like that Linux can.

Could you, would you use what we wrote?

I would not, could not, use what you wrote!

Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?

I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.

You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.

Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.

Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable... And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!

So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.

And I will use it here and there. Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!

I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!

By The Cat with the Red Hat

The Linux kernel has had multiple major vulns lately. I don't think you can put it down to Microsoft not caring about security so much as it's a hard job and getting harder with every line of bloat Microsoft adds.

I'm curious if anyone's found an OpenBSD vulnerability lately?