00:15:22 icedice: reddit has blocked many VPN ASNs in the past months and only increasing 00:16:33 Yeah, but never on old Reddit 00:16:39 That's what threw me off 00:16:48 I only ever use old Reddit 00:25:04 they've blocked my on old reddit as well 01:17:36 https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/streaming/twitch-bans-butt-streams/ 01:18:21 !tell HP_Archivist https://transfer.archivete.am/inline/BxU9C/harry-potter.png 01:18:21 -eggdrop- [tell] ok, I'll tell HP_Archivist when they join next 01:27:52 icedice: try a different location. sweden is banned but not e.g. finland, norway 01:27:59 ymmv 01:29:24 holy shit nulldata photo... that's genuinely one of the most creative things I've seen lol. 01:29:24 Yeah, I know 01:29:30 It's based on the ASN 01:30:12 The hosting provider and ASN that's used for Sweden is used for a bunch of European locations 01:31:31 I hate the enshittification of Reddit 01:40:07 Seems like Reddit also covered np.reddit.com and pay.reddit.com 01:42:42 there was a pay.reddit.com one?! wtf 🤢 01:44:32 Yeah 01:44:53 I forgot what it was for exactly, but it had the old site layout 01:47:17 I'd assume for 'gold' and all the nonsense other thingies they added later? 01:48:08 "It's an old subdomain used to have HTTPS, but now it's obsolete, yet it sometimes appears, maybe due to old traffic on Google" 01:48:19 I believe pay.reddit.com was used for making Reddit Gold payments and it forced HTTPS. Back when a lot of websites didn't have or use HTTPS by default. 01:48:20 Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/help/comments/1734da0/what_is_payredditcom/ 01:48:32 you had to PAY for HTTPS? wtf 01:48:56 No, it was a separate domain for making payments securely when the rest of it wasn't using HTTPS. 01:49:00 I think. 01:49:32 https://undelete.pullpush.io/ now says "Could not connect to Reddit 01:49:32 " 01:49:46 Worked fine a while ago 01:49:51 So I'm guessing this change also hit them 01:50:02 And PullPush in general 01:52:48 nulldata: man I wouldn't want to be in Twitch's side here 01:53:38 streamers keep pushing the line on purpose 01:53:58 but it's so difficult to try to codify where the line is 01:54:28 Unsure if this is pointed out, but huh, from http://103.230.141.12/finished - https://transfer.archivete.am/u31zO/firefox_2024-03-27_18-51-01.png 01:54:29 inline (for browser viewing): https://transfer.archivete.am/inline/u31zO/firefox_2024-03-27_18-51-01.png 01:54:46 what about it 01:54:51 What are the chances of that 01:55:05 the "remaining"? 01:55:14 Yeah o.o; 01:56:35 Ryz: IP address instead of dns? 01:57:20 It can be as https://archivebot.com/finished 01:58:11 why were you using the IP? :P 02:00:12 man i thought i was in #archivebot for a solid 4 mins 02:00:27 i was like it's unsually chatty 02:01:06 why does the #archivebot bot not use NOTICEs? 02:04:44 you'd have to ask `hannahwhy`: https://github.com/ArchiveTeam/ArchiveBot/commit/8ce9860590ec30409939fbf7b61325964e1fe6bb 02:05:20 (first page: https://github.com/ArchiveTeam/ArchiveBot/commits/master/?after=ad9703c489168bb88cd53b3f4ea3b6dadfe8820f+2204) 02:06:56 ooh hannahwhy why 02:07:33 nicolas17, I more or less have it saved in my text files for quick deployment of links at the same time; I think it was before I realized there's a domain about it, but I guess kept it that way after all these years 02:07:55 I guess on the off-chance that the named domain gets knocked down somehow 02:26:27 Yep, the archivebot.com website wasn't accessible for a brief moment earlier, while the other one is still usable 03:05:19 oh weird, dns issues perhaps? 03:15:45 Maybe your browser was trying https? The ArchiveBot site doesn't respond to 443 for some reason. 03:20:10 https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1bouuv7/warning_vultr_a_major_cloud_provider_is_now/ 03:20:36 can someone who's.... uh... clear headed lmk if this is just bs 03:20:59 >Vultr's new agreement requires its customers to fork over rights to our apps/software/data/anything hosted on the Vultr cloud platform. That goes way too far. No other datacenter company requires this. 03:23:40 people mad but it kinda looks like one of those like "facebook is allowed to transmit pictures on your behalf if you upload them to the service" penis covering things? 03:23:45 😶‍🌫️ 03:23:53 there is no way this is legally enforceable. there was no notice of upcoming ToS changes afaik 03:24:17 fireonlive: no, this doesn't seem acceptable 03:24:19 that alone would make it uneforceable even outside of the EU/GDPR region 03:24:21 hmm 03:24:36 "for purposes of providing the Services to you" though 03:24:38 apparently signing in has you agree to it or something? 03:25:14 sad if bad, was going to get a few thing from there 03:25:23 if it was just like facebook's "we're allowed to prepare derivative works of your content (generate thumbnails of your photos to serve them to users)" then every hosting service would need the same 03:26:01 fireonlive: they can't force you to agree when signing in, because if you disagree, how do you turn your servers off and cancel your account? 03:26:16 ah yeah 03:26:42 looks like that's exactly what's happening to the OP 03:26:43 yeah there's usually a notice before they do major ToS changes like this 03:26:49 "I've been trying to get them to at least let me access my account without agreeing to the new TOS so I can migrate out to another provider, but I'm now on day 5 of being locked out with no end in sight" 03:27:07 :| 03:27:10 that way you can migrate data in case you/your legal team deems this change unacceptable 03:27:47 5 days is ridiculous, especially if e.g. they have (high) egress fees for large migrations 03:28:06 in that sense it doesn't even matter what the ToS change is or if it's enforceable etc 03:28:26 if they change the ToS and you disagree with it for whatever reason, *what do you do*? 03:28:55 It doesn't matter because what can you do about it? Sue them for $0.001 of AI content income? Sue them for your account after they've already deleted your data for nonpayment? Keep paying and sue them for a refund of $10? 03:29:15 The justice system doesn't actually deliver justice in most cases 03:29:30 Vultr-- 03:29:31 -eggdrop- [karma] 'Vultr' now has -1 karma! 03:29:35 nic said it first 03:29:49 'commercialize the User Content' woop 03:30:43 "Just upload a bunch of Nintendo IP and then have Nintendo sue the shit out of them since they now are responsible for it." 03:32:33 Hmm later in the agreement https://www.vultr.com/legal/tos/#:~:text=(c)%20As%20between,under%20these%20Terms. 03:32:58 > (c) As between You and Vultr, Vultr acknowledges that it claims no proprietary rights in or to Your Content. You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive, worldwide and royalty-free license to copy, make derivative works, display, perform, use, broadcast and transmit on and via the Internet Your Content, solely for the benefit of You and to enable 03:32:58 Vultr to perform its obligations under these Terms. 03:35:06 hm 03:35:17 I wonder if the User Content section of the agreement was meant more for user generated content you submit to their site such as comments and support tickets. 03:35:51 well as I said there's two separate issues here 03:36:34 one is the nature of the new terms, the other is that they didn't give advance notice and a way to login without agreeing so you can move your shit out if you disagree 03:37:05 they are somewhat orthogonal and independently fucked up 03:37:47 "Last Modified: January 8, 2024" - apparently it's been like this for awhile too? 03:38:00 idk this seems like pretty standard ass covering to me 03:38:22 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39847156 mentions a new CDN product 03:38:22 "Digital Ocean specifically limits this clause to uploads on their website (ie, for community articles, forum posts, etc), not for all hosted services (which would include virtual machines, databases, etc)" 03:38:32 via https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=vultr&sort=byDate&type=story 03:40:37 The 'summary' they provide at the side doesn't really match what they're saying in the section 03:40:46 https://lounge.nulldata.foo/uploads/b8a83ad3a66427d6/image.png 03:41:29 "you grant us permission to use your content as necessary to provide you with the Services." when the wording the agreement is way more than what is necessary to provide services. 03:50:54 :| 03:51:05 wtf they up to 05:04:00 [tell] HP_Archivist: [2024-03-28T01:18:21Z] https://transfer.archivete.am/inline/BxU9C/harry-potter.png 05:05:10 JAA RE: Potter Lmao 05:05:39 :-) 17:57:53 neat https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/new-open-source-gpu-is-free-to-all-supports-modern-windows-software-stack-runs-on-an-fpga-with-custom-pcb 18:24:48 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/sbf-in-jail/ 18:25:39 nukke: I want to see Ben Eater's reaction to this :3 18:31:26 Neat indeed! 18:40:23 https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-launches-open-source-valkey-community redis is saved 18:40:32 valkey was placeholderkv 18:41:47 Nice :-) 18:53:50 Has anyone migrated to OpenTofu? Curious how that one is doing 18:57:10 it works great nukke 18:58:43 Have they diverged from upstream yet? 19:01:18 yes 20:53:54 imer: gonna continue the discussion here as its kinda getting a bit off topic 20:53:59 if that's ok 20:54:34 sure, i'm pretty done though haha 20:54:56 My most recent complaint with OVH is their billing - They for whatever benevolent reason decided that instead of paying $38.06 per month plus taxes for the SYS-1-SAT-32 server, I was paying their current price of $34.99 20:55:02 this was a few months back 20:55:28 A couple of days ago I got three invoices from them for no reason, turns out it's the difference between the 38.06 and 34.99 20:55:41 lol 20:55:49 they should just eat it at that point 20:55:59 they're going to, because they're on my ground now 20:56:08 (Canada) 21:26:09 nyany: get 'em!! 21:37:58 yes. ^ 21:46:40 https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156829031615403 21:53:12 "Are you compliant with the software licenses of your dependencies in any way whatsoever?" 21:55:43 :P 21:55:46 <_<; 21:55:54 update on vultr: https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/2024/cloud-prodiver-vultr-has-bone-to-pick-after-reddit-post 21:58:37 prodiver 21:58:57 fireonlive: i mean, it's MIT license. Sorry for the 9% who have to be learned the news the hard way 21:58:59 The fourth one is a bit tricky, but yeah. 21:59:51 Yeah, relicensing caught my tired brain off guard, but makes sense. 22:01:10 The trickier part in my eyes is the 'claim to be the authoritative source for the software' bit. 22:03:02 thats fair, likely something one might need to go to court over to figure out case by case and depending on the wording.. 22:03:26 Yeah 22:04:12 "no trademark" pushed that to "legally allowed" for me though, not a lawyer though and I probably wouldn't want the ensuing drama either way 22:04:49 a dick move either wat 22:04:50 y* 22:04:57 A trademark would certainly push it to no, yeah. Without one, it's a lot murkier. Probably very dependent on jurisdiction. 22:05:06 Oh, definitely 22:08:51 i thought about that, but they're only claiming to be the authoritative source for the -improved software? *shrug* 22:09:34 Hmm yeah, I read it as 'for the original'. 22:10:00 the more i see this corporate bullcrap, the more i like agpl 22:10:02 mmh, IMO that's the difference between "bad taste" and "complete scum 22:10:07 Otherwise mentioning it doesn't make too much sense, really? 22:10:18 You'd always claim to be the authoritative source for your project. 22:10:59 well... most people don't explicitly make that claim 22:12:39 honestly I think my response if someone decided to fork something of mine, would be "oh great, i can stop maintaining it" 22:12:40 Yeah, maybe not explicitly. 22:12:46 Heh 22:13:16 Barto: I assume you're familiar with marcan's rant about the AGPL? 22:13:25 unless they remove the only reason you made that project in the first place in their Improvements 22:15:20 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019 22:16:34 JAA: i actually am not 22:16:44 that's a damn wall of text 22:16:57 Yeah, and there's a second wall of text in the replies. 22:17:24 was opening to read a bit of a comment, not tolstoi's entire work 22:17:27 Don't take this as a 'that's how it is', by the way. I haven't made up my mind about the AGPL, but I found that rant quite interesting. 22:17:51 like you, IANAL :-) 22:17:59 :-) 22:22:47 also, i can poke at marcan whenever i want, the dude is in archlinuxarm on libera, too ;-) Never talked to the guy though 22:29:04 this umm... seems like a purposeful misinterpretation on the "pull request flow" bit 22:29:39 you can download, change, and run it yourself all you want; you have access to your modified code and you are the only one interacting with it over the network 22:32:02 ah, he addresses it in another responses... yeah... still don't buy that bit 22:35:37 Barto: you anal? ;) 22:36:07 :D 22:36:13 indeed 22:59:58 Barton: and SSPL is AGPL but even moreso, but also a bit crayony. 23:04:23 Yeah, the SSPL is pretty ridiculous. 23:25:48 :D 23:29:50 https://www.vultr.com/news/A-Note-About-Vultrs-Terms-of-Service/ 23:31:36 Something I was wondering; how many of you have met fellow internet archivists (be it from archiveteam or otherwise) in real life? 23:34:23 JAA: good, but not addressing the ToS change issue 23:34:34 They're simultaneously claiming that the paragraph was only relevant for forums et al. (but that wasn't what the legal text said as far as I could tell, even if that was the intent) and that the rights were only granted for providing the Services. So... which is it? 23:34:51 Yeah, that too. 23:35:09 rewby, i've met someone from this channel but not in a long time 23:35:59 arkiver has at least :p 23:59:14 "How dare a customer call us out for having crappy broad language in our ToS after confirming with our support department the language was intended! They should know we only have good intentions! This is clearly a competitor jealous of our low GPU pricing."