There were some cases (maybe all?) where those glitchy/rainbow graphics (during load or in the border while it ran) were the program utilizing graphics RAM as program RAM during a heavy process (decompression, for instance).
Surely that must use conventional HTTP referrer data—for which we have well established standards, decades of experience managing interactions and edge cases, and norms for respecting user consent—and not some apparently wishful query parameter?
A user agent SHOULD NOT send a Referer header field if the referring resource was accessed with a secure protocol and the request target has an origin differing from that of the referring resource, unless the referring resource explicitly allows Referer to be sent. A user agent MUST NOT send a Referer header field in an unsecured HTTP request if the referring resource was accessed with a secure protocol.
In other words, it's not guaranteed that this Referer header is set. One can of course choose to remove the query parameter.
Yes, that’s the part about interactions and consent. The intent then is to circumvent that? A case of those pesky matters of security and respect for human dignity getting in the way of SEO?
For another perspective, I can offer the data point that the one dynamic feed generator I’ve written supports both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match, and that I considered that to be an obvious requirement from the beginning.
Not familiar with this project but I’ve taken a “selfie” with Seattle’s live traffic cameras and it didn’t involve violating any traffic laws. The video lag was such that you could wave at the camera halfway through a crosswalk, get safely to the other side, then pull out your phone and see yourself waving back.
I do submit a complaint for each instance. I’ve sent over a thousand now. Hopefully it’s useful data to someone.
My intent isn’t to reverse-spam the FCC though; the complaint form just only accepts one phone number at a time. Amusingly I’ve discovered that it’s possible to receive a higher volume of spam than the FCC’s rate limits allow reporting.
Yeah, my price just changed from €7.05 to €8.99—in the name of fairness to low impact users? It’s brazenly nonsensical.
It would be so much better if they’d just said “sorry but we need to raise prices”. The attempt to sugarcoat it is insulting to begin with, and it’s only made worse that their backwards excuse comes across as thoughtlessly trampling us.
On my ThinkPad it’s instead painted with a red dot. Because, obviously, the conventional meaning of a red dot appearing on a camera is “not recording”.
Not just the weird meaning, but on my last Thinkpad the red dot and the slightly red glean of the camera lens look surprisingly like each other. Even worse I managed to get the cover in a position where it looked like it was closed, but the camera could still see.
I just looked up to my "Lenovo Performance" webcam and saw its red dot [1] looking at me... some product designers have a worrying lack of awareness about de-facto standards and user expectations affecting the UX.
Same on my Dell Latitude. Seems a very odd design decision. They've also centrally aligned the switch so that it's not immediately obvious from the switch position whether the cover is iver the lens or not. Super annoying.
This would be more actionable if it revealed to me what platform the game is designed for.
Out of curiosity I tried running it anyway and it filled the viewport with rapidly flashing colored bars.
reply