wget isn't supposed to work on these sites. They've chosen Cloudflare and asked them to do this.

That’s exactly the part that people forget: all these policies are decided to be applied by the website owners. It started with DDoS blocking and they just extended it to more things.

I feel like people here are forgetting the fact just how hostile bad actors on the internet are / can be.

How website owners enable infinite captcha?

That brings up opt-in vs opt-out tho, and last time I looked, Cloudflare defaulted to automatically signing website owners for it. That is to say, if you just mash next, Cloudflare blocks "AI", whatever that means.

It's not up to Cloudflare, it's up to the businesses that choose Cloudflare for that protection.

good job, you missed the point

Great job, you've failed to document the point.

Regardless of the level a tutorial is given at, there is information that is missing. A well written tutorial knows its audience and contains all the information for that audience.

Sure, I will grant that someone who doesn't know what a computer is shouldn't be expected to follow a tutorial to install PostgreSQL on a headless linux server with proper security protocols in place.

The issue is more that it's extremely easy to assume someone understands what "primitive file operations" are necessary to accomplish a goal, and fail to describe what it is the user actually has to do.

Just because you understand how to navigate a file structure doesn't necessarily mean you have the domain knowledge necessary to make leaps that are frequently present in tutorials.

> there is information that is missing.

What information was missing?

> and fail to describe what it is the user actually has to do.

How is "go to a folder and copy file content" is not such a description?

> doesn't necessarily mean you have the domain knowledge necessary to make leaps that are frequently present in tutorials.

Again, rather than speaking generically, how does this post demonstrate it? What leap is present in "this tutorial" that an average reader would not have the knowledge to make?

You’ve assume your beginner knows that In the Terminal meand open the Terminal application, knows how to open the Terminal, knows that the Terminal uses typed commands, knows that typed commands are followed by Enter, and knows that the text following Terminal are the typed commands to be entered.

The non-garbling threw me off (it wasn't jabbernocks), so assumed some passing familiarity. But even granting that, you can add a few minutes and a few google searches to your complexity budget.

Wireless charging is undoing all the gains of low charging speed because it's so much higher temp.

My phone doesn't get hot at all with wireless charging using a low watt power source though.

Also I am using magsafe which due to the magnet alignment leads to a high efficiency transfer at least.

What kind of monopoly?

They are cornering rideshare and automatic vehicles. They are the sole provider of an automatic vehicle.

Fair enough, I suppose they have a monopoly. Good thing that isn't illegal if they're not anti-competitive about it.

They aren't the only autonomous vehicle for hire service. Zoox is operating in Vegas.

Even if they were the only one, it would be odd to classify autonomous rideshare as a distinct market given they compete directly with other vehicle for hire services where they have nothing close to monopoly-like power.

iOS has many private APIs, this one is no different. The fact it's implemented in WebKit is a red herring.

So when Google creates self-serving APIs in a web browser engine, it's anti-consumer and is killing the free web.

But when Apple creates self-serving APIs in a web browser engine, it's just another private entitlement, a red herring and their right as the proprietor of Safari.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

It's literally not part of the web because it's not available in Safari or WebKit views in applications.

The difference is that Google is by far in a much more dominant position and every dev who leverages Chrome-specific APIs further entrenches that dominance. In the browser space, Apple is the long-trailing runner-up and has far less impact.

It appears that this particular API is restricted to embedded webviews, too (doesn’t work in Safari), so it has no bearing on the open web, unlike APIs such as WebUSB in Chrome.

It does not

Loved my remarkable pro, but it was too expensive.

Because anti-competitive behavior in this context cannot be performed by someone without a monopoly.

Apple cannot be anti-competitive in the search space unless you show they have a monopoly on browser apps (which you could, but would probably fail based on how the Apple lawsuit is going).

I'm not referring to the specific context of this lawsuit, but the broader context in general.

Google is in multiple anti-competitive lawsuits, while Apple has the most walled garden of all gardens, protects it with a giant club and manages to get away without a scratch. For example Google got sued for anti-competitive practices in Android regarding third party stores, Apple gets no such lawsuit because they simply made it impossible.

Of course it's the laws to blame since they incentivize aggressively closed ecosystems from the get go, but it's odd that there isn't even a conversation about it regarding Apple.