ghjfrdghibt

[flagged]

[flagged]

In short, just answering this question (which as stated in the other comment is not the issue), yes that person has t done anything wrong. There is no offence for wearing hats in banks.

[flagged]

It refutes nothing, it attempts to place the blame for cloudflare incompetence at the feet of a user who has done nothing wrong.

[flagged]

I hope this is true, it seems to make sense even to someone with absolutely no knowledge of this stuff, like me. It seems simple. I like simple.

This company is older than America...

From my extremely limited searching (Wikipedia) it's almost as old as the state itself.

I used this once, completely unrelated to version control, to visualise the number of referrals my dept had received over time (broken down but year and month) to visually show the growth of referrals and why we needed more people to manage the influx.

Was it cool? Yes. Did it show the issue in an easily to understand way anyone could understand? Yes. Did it change anything? Hell no.

I vaguely remember this from this last year though I can't remember all the details. That's a scary slippery slope.

Of course it'll be presented as a security feature, because users are dumb, whilst also allowing vendors to lock you into their ecosystem; similar to how passkeys are currently being push by these same companies.

[flagged]

It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare.

But if you like: the arbitrarily blocked user if not at fault, cloudflare is at fault.

[flagged]

Maybe you're right, I see it all the time. Assume cloudflare do other dumb stuff too then like up ranges and just being generally crap at their jobs.

I think this principle likely does not include the public sector which like to promote to incompetence, and beyond; buzz lightyear style.