> This website is not affiliated with the Proxmox VE Helper Scripts repository. This website is simply a redesign of the original website, with a focus on readability and security.
I'm assuming there's no malicious intent here, but tteck explicitly warns against these kinds of copycat sites.
I also use NginxProxyManager (8 hosts) and I'm not seeing any replies to your post that would explain why caddyserver or traefik provide any benefit over NPM.
It simply puts up friction for the non-technical user from adopting these user scripts. The stated goal of google is to prevent malware from extensions, but i suspect the real goal is of course, prevent the browser from being changed by the user in a way that google doesn't like.
That link doesn't mention anything about it being a "bathroom spy camera".
It was sold as a nanny cam which is really a legitimate, if slightly distasteful, function. There is an image of it shown with towels on the hook, but it isn't stated or implied that it should be used to spy on people as they use the bathroom.
I'm a big fan of holding tech companies to the same standards as other industries, but not a big fan of holding them to unreasonably high standards.
Of course they do. There are countless legitimate uses for a hidden camera. The only thing a visible camera is good for is to ensure that nothing bad happens in front of that camera.
And even a towel bar or clothes hanger does not automatically mean bedroom or bathroom either.
Closets and towel bars can and do exist anywhere, like kitchens, laundry rooms, front and rear entrances, mud rooms, workshops, offices, stock rooms, really anywhere.
They are even legitimate IN bedrooms, if it's your own bedroom. It's wrong obviously to peeping-tom on a guest or tenant, but if I want to monitor my own bedroom when I'm not in it, I certainly can, and that means the product can't be automatically invalid to exist.
What a useless article, especially given the title. Here's all they have to say about the layout:
There’s some dispute over how and why Sholes and Glidden arrived at the QWERTY layout. Some historians have argued that it solved a jamming problem by spacing out the most common letters in English; others, particularly more recent historians, hold that it was designed specifically to help telegraphists avoid common errors when transcribing Morse code. Regardless, after around 30 test models, Sholes and Glidden settled on QWERTY—and changed the world.
I disagree. When I have a question, I am prepared for the answer to have some amount of ambiguity, especially when it comes to historical questions of the format "why is X", "how did X originate", etc. If I were trying to choose a descriptive name for an article, the question that it researches is a reasonable choice. Combined then, I am happy with the article's content given its title, and I am happy with the information it delivered to me without my having to do my own research. I don't feel that this is clickbait, nor do I feel qualified to assert that their conclusion is wrong.
Yes, and like many I've heard the anti-jamming explanation (contra the slow typists down one), so I actually find it interesting that this is a somewhat unsettled question.
>> There’s some dispute over how and why Sholes and Glidden arrived at the QWERTY layout.
Well at least it says who came up with it and when, so we know who to blame for it. None of the common suggestions make sense to me. It might be useful to examine the design of their first model now that we know who made it.
