Heh I literally at the same time you posted answered to someone else that I think I er where I’m coming from.
Personally my issue is more with the framing (“looking for an employee”) than with the fact that they want/need a contractor.
I still wish them the best and would encourage everyone qualified to put their energy into a project like this rather than … Close to anything else!
I get where you’re coming from. I highly respect this project for its privacy push and it’s sadly a good example of “not all issues have the same priority”.
I honestly can see them just not being able to handle the business risk of a full employee would bring or several other reasons why it’s “okay” from their perspective. I now basically have to choose between two subjects that I find important.
For me I came to the conclusion that I still wish them the best - I can’t hold them to a standard ass high as the corporate world personally, let alone one higher.
“you will be employed as an independent contractor”
Dear (US) companies: this is not “employed”. This is commissioned or mandated, depending on the contract details.
The first part is a technical question and the second part a definition one.
For the how to: the most common approach is to simply blacklist their IPs on a provider basis. This leads to no provider that obeys your blacklists to allow their users traffic to that target. Usually all providers in a nation obey that nations law (I assume, I only know that for my own :D)
For the censorship: I don’t like that word because it’s implications fan be used against any and all laws. A shitload of content is made inaccessible because it breaks laws from active coordination of attacks to human trafficking. All of this can be described as censorship.
Forthe UK law it’s… I’m not British and to me it appears to be a vague tool to silence and control all types of content under the guise of protecting children. Not with the intention to protect or prevent something but with the intent to control. I would fully understand and emphasize with using the word censorship in this context.
Take a sentence with 200 characters then.
And your opinion is exactly that and doesnt match security research:
For the following you’re not the target group but others reading this who might want to make their lifes easier. Just from your way of writing I at least don’t expect that minor sources like okta or the NCSC will change your mind.
( article links with high level descriptions and links to their primary sources)
https://www.okta.com/identity-101/password-vs-passphrase/
https://www.4bis.com/passphrase-vs-complicated-passwords-passphrases-are-best/
https://specopssoft.com/blog/passphrase-best-practice-guide/
There’s a xkcd for that of course! Linking directly to the explain as it has more info but the important thing is: password guidelines tricked humans into thinking in a machine way about safe passwords but long pass phrases are more secure from an entropy point of view and way easier to remember!
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/936:_Password_Strength
Hey,
I’d be very grateful if you could share your approach den if it’s only to compare (I went with a “be assertive and clear, skip all overhead” system prompt.
This is not only interesting for chatgpt but understanding how people solve these issues comes in handy when switching to local variants as well!
Thanks in advance
And the top comment explains why it indeed is such s big issue. This is incomprehensibly incompetent.
There are few more services you need to be able to trust beyond your mail and VPN. If you have still trust then that’s ok, don’t get me wrong - but stating “just because the CEO spewed s bit of pro trump shit this got blown out of proportion” doesn’t acknowledge the propositions at all.
Hertz is the repetition per second, to get it you simply divide the amount with the time.
This gives you 20 “swings” divided by 2.5 seconds, getting to 8hz, B.
Well… You are red… Is it anger? ❤️
The screenshot had has the criteria included though. Relevant part: either be for children or for everyone.
They are employed by themselves. They are not employed AS anything else. You have it right just your conclusion is inconsistent.
It’s for me not about the wording of the last paragraph by the way but about the context and requirements list which makes the impression (to me) of offering an employee/employer relationship which is only broken up in the last line. That’s the part I really don’t like.
This kind of advertisement would be illegal in Germany btw as it would encourage pseudo self employment: someone self employed who is relying on one client only. (And no, not exaggerated: I’ve a legal department at least pull job description from the tech dept similar to this).