yhlasx

Clickbait title, content about why something like this won't happen. screw this.

The curious thing is, I could not replicate the clickjacking issue. Everytime I make a click on original wordpress registration page, I am verified as a human immediately.

If I do the click on your github page, I get a challenge. My clicks were never accepted as human on your github page. My clicks were always accepted as human on wordpress page.

>>>So what Google is trying to sell us as a comprehensive bot detecting algorithm is simply a whitelist based on your previous online behavior, CAPTCHAs you solved.

That is a bold statement, something presented as a fact, not a hypothesis.

>>which you probably didn't care to read

I did read it. My point is, you, or I, or anyone for that matter does not know the inner details of how it works.

>>If they can track mouse movements why in incognito mode i'm not a human for them anymore?

Maybe having a clean cookie history is not good enough during the risk assessment.

Look, my entire point is, google is not a joke company. I am certain that they tested it for effectiveness before deploying.

The google's blogpost says that 98 something percent of old text could be deciphered by AI. My point is, regardless of vulnerabilities of the new system, I am certain that it is more effective than the old alternative. They would have tested it.

>>People love not to think

O_O

judging by the comment you wrote right after that, I would assume you are one of the people who likes not to think.

They are making people click checkboxes and deviating from the old model of recognition. Your comment makes no sense.

Seriously guys? This made to the top of the front page? First of all, to all people saying "HUR DUR GOOGLE WANTS YOUR BROWSING DATA", well they already fucking have/had it for a looong time.

Secondly, If you tell me that one dude [author] ruled the one+ year work of the engineering team at google as a flaw and simplified it as [So what Google is trying to sell us as a comprehensive bot detecting algorithm is simply a whitelist based on your previous online behavior, CAPTCHAs you solved.] and that you believe it, I would question your intelligence.

This is supposed to be tech savvy community at least to some degree, what the fuck.

Now, in the google's blogpost it reads [Advanced Risk Analysis backend for reCAPTCHA that actively considers a user’s entire engagement with the CAPTCHA—before, during, and after—to determine whether that user is a human.]

[However, CAPTCHAs aren't going away just yet. In cases when the risk analysis engine can't confidently predict whether a user is a human or an abusive agent, it will prompt a CAPTCHA to elicit more cues, increasing the number of security checkpoints to confirm the user is valid.]

So my guess would be they analyze users behaviour on the page where captcha is located, things like mouse movements, time it takes to type out the words, spelling mistakes corrected and whatever else humans do differently than bots - and only then combine that with your historical cookies. Maybe it is much more complicated than that, I, as well as you, don't know the details.

Do you really think that they would go ahead and implement a such system without rigorous testing of effectiveness? I am sure that they tested it extensively with users, AND with bots, and decided that it is better than the current system, and ONLY then deployed it. Rant off.

IMO they should take some cues from IOS and allow users to allow/disallow such things when apps make the requests, not dump all permissions as allow all or none when users install the apps.

I think this is what people overlook most of the time. I did not use the calendar app because it was overloaded with things that were completely unnecessary for ME. Now, it is much simpler, might start using it.

Majority of their users probably are better off with the new calendar app, so they readjusted it for a better fit. If it turns out this is not the case, they will change it further, maybe bring some old functionalities back.

They focus on what will please majority of their users, as any other company would and should, not their power users.

All things considered, no surprises here. Extreme majority of Google's profits depend on how well their search works. Same is not true for Apple with siri, or microsoft with Bing.

I have good internet. I am in Korea though, so that might have been part of the problem, but the video was VERY laggy and annoying.

Pay me 1 BTC and I will make it for you. 1CgZ2qaZdY5UxZi5RBkq5426a7zxMmiZaa

I don't see anything wrong with this. If the option is selected, probably someone at the shipping out location (or retail location) manually will install firefox, or windows image with firefox on it. It is perfectly fine. Even if automated, automation is not free. Are they overcharging? Probably.

I disagree that it does not follow mozilla's terms, they are selling the service, as stated, not the browser.

4 rupee price was before, when he first went to buy them. Years passed, and India has crazy amounts of inflation, and now it costs 2.5 rupees. I think if calculated, he probably made somewhat of a 70+% discount or more.

Increase in corporate taxes will be partially paid by consumers, but also it will reduce corporate profits. If they pass it completely to consumers, it will reduce demand -> reduce revenue -> reduce profits, so the increase will be paid by both parties. If anyone believes in market forces and the invisible hand (also if you took some basic economics courses) you should agree with this.

I don't understand the fuss over corporate taxes