Unless whoever is patrolling this filtering is completely insane just show them that page that you were on and how hovering over the link triggers the filter.
Every instance of web filtering I've been subject to in my life just blocks the bad page and the admins expect people to have a few bad requests just by accident or whatever. You'd have to be constantly hitting the filter for it to actually become a real issue.
Hrm, agree, but the OP said some of these were written for complete newbies. A newbie at software development is not going to know what VCS stands for.
I only skimmed the github page, but this seems to be more of 'what the author commonly uses' rather than what you'd normally expect of a standard library. For example, I'd expect that many of these features be more in a separate dedicated library rather than the 'standard':
- 40+ PRNGs (You might want one or two, but do you really need so many varients?)
- Plot API (Definitely more suited for a separate library)
- 50+ Sample Datasets (Often useless and a lot of wasted space if not used)
- Native BLAS Interface (Extremely niche usecase)
Edit: To be fair, it does say right at the very beginning "with an emphasis on numerical and scientific computing applications". So they are upfront about it, but the library name and HN submission name are confusing because they don't make this obvious.
When using a single password for all sites, any malicious or breached website exposes access to all your accounts. When using a password manager, only a breach of your computer or the password manager itself (or your email) will totally pwn you.
Breaches online are very, very common, and I would expect any password used on every single website you use to get leaked quickly.
I don't see how paying for the site would change the situation at all. I still don't consent to tracking in either case and they will still track me in either case.
Like paying to go to a movie theater doesn't mean you can choose to skip the ads before the show.
If I had to guess without any real numbers I'd say that spyware is a) not reducing the cost of the device anyway (no reason to cut price), b) real profits per device are closer to cents than dollars.
I imagine advertising "Hey, User, remember that amazing Phone Model 1 you could buy for 600$? Now you can buy it with included spying software for your convenience, for the same amazing 600$ and we will earn 20 cents more from each deal! How cool is that, heh?! You want it too, right?!" :)
So I admittedly don't know much about this stuff, but what would be the difference between using Kong and the Nginx ingress controller? What advantages/improvements would I see/be able to use?
Kong is different from Nginx ingress controller. Without a controller, you have to manually register the endpoint/service. You would want to by pass k8s service and use pod ip directly. That's why they do the kong ingress controller.
The main difference is in plugin API. It's very easy to write plugin for Kong. The second is where data is persisted. Kong stores data in db. Therefore they can do something with it. Ingress controller in 0.21 has dynamic backend, they basically hold an in memory objects for api routing rule.
Kong shines when you have complex logic routing, want to leverage their API keys authentication. Such as you can easily expose a service, with API key store in db. Where as you have to write a logs of `auth access` rule and store key in configmap/env in Nginx ingress.
Nginx ingress config is all about watching configmap/annotations and re-generate config. Such as when new service are added, the config is generated(When new pods are added/remove they use Lua to routing so no more reload in there). In Kong, these are seamless, no reload. All data are stored in either Postgres/Cassandra.
That's said, Kong is very nice but it adds more overhead than a simple Nginx ingress.
Kong's K8s Ingress Controller lets you configure and run plugins (custom code) on your proxy traffic. This gives you a lot of power on how you’d like to route, authenticate, shape your traffic.
Nginx gives you the ability to tweak functionality, but it's not as dynamic or as easy out of the box.
That is through a set of additional plugins. Kong uses that base and ships with mature implementing plugins including a robust RESTful API for managing config.
