lcfg

GDPR hysteria.

> Attackers are opportunistic and low level attacks need resources not available to as many as app level vulnerabilities.

Which resources are you talking about?

Anyhow, I strongly disagree with your conclusion. I hope these vulnerabilities spur people on to install NoScript (i.e. block JS) and thereby reduce a very, very significant attack vector.

Quicker one: start calling it 'identity fraud'

Actually, when I see MeshTags I assume "they're" just trying to sell me an cumbersome url shortening serivce.

By the way, the assumption that people don't/won't use QR codes is wrong. Here's one example: Chinese associate QR codes with product information (ex.: scanning a code on a bottle of soda).

Many people don't use QR codes but I think your assumption (QR codes will evermore be perceived as commercials) is totally off base.

Couldn't it be argued that it (take down notice for 127.0.0.1) can -only- be a deliberate misstatement?

WB can not argue that the 'chance' of 127.0.0.1 hosting copyrighted content is anything but non-zero. This means that sending out take down notices regarding 127.0.0.1 are nonsense (i.e. deliberate misstatement).

I'm prompted to visit the "global website" because "this website is for the U.S.". The redirect does not take me to a "Square Dashboard App".

You should probably define "maintenance", otherwise it's very difficult to agree on such a system.

These throwbacks have a way of being very topical. 12th item on Hacker News that day for me is "The Next SourceForge": "SourceForge has been rethought, reimplemented, and rejuvenated."

If someone "just" bought something in your shop (as mentioned in the article) you shouldn't bother them. If you're running a business like this, managing expectations is a large part of your job.

When discussions with customers occur frequently maybe it's time to review how your business is communicating with customers. What can be done to prevent misunderstandings regarding using laptops/hogging tables? etc.

I can't believe the responses I'm reading here.

People, if you do the following: divert users you suspect will leave a low rating to an external service and direct users you think will leave a high rating to the play store... you're scamming the system. You are absolutely abusing the way the Play Store works, what reviews and rankings mean within the ecosystem of the Play Store and worst of all, you are _most definitely_ abusing the trust of your customers.

Why are people happily admitting they're doing this? It's a scam!

You're seriously telling his kids what to do? Get real. Kids love to read comics: comics have great value for kids. Colours, heroes, secret hideouts and cool punchlines. Why wouldn't kids (male & female) want that? Why shouldn't they?

The next time you're about to tell someone('s kids) what to enjoy, remember that what you like is not necessarily what others like.

The writer of the article didn't 'complain about anything'. The complaint is very specific: lots of comics in the comic book store he visited featured more adult illustrations that he and his kid would've liked to see. Valid complaint that doesn't have anything to do with 'attitudes'.