3 ms·

Wrong, Google is Cloudflare partner, so it is the opposite, at the very least, one company (Google) loves the fact Cloudflare is doing what they're doing; my es

by nxzero 11y ago

Wrong, Google is Cloudflare partner, so it is the opposite, at the very least, one company (Google) loves the fact Cloudflare is doing what they're doing; my estimates peg the value of the data in the hundreds of millions based on what Google already pays to get the same type of data from users. Second, volume counts do not equal session counts and I find it very hard to believe that a human non-abussive human session looks the same as an abussive session. If true, then it's Cloudflare that's abusing users and exploiting the situation, not TOR. Also, TOR users are not blocked, but flagged to provided data to Google. Also, Cloudflare's clients like don't even know about the issue since according to Cloudflare they're flagging IPs, not TOR.

jerf 11y ago
Did you intend this as a reply to something else? I can't even connect your comment to what I said. It starts with "wrong" but doesn't seem to address anything I said.
- nxzero 11y ago
  Please bullet/number your concerns as self-contained statements and I'll explicitly reference them. And yes, my response is to your comment, though do see how it's possible it's ambiguous to how I'm addressing your concerns. Thanks for the comment.
  - tempestn 11y ago
    It's not his job to format his comment to make it convenient for you to rebut. I agree that it's not at all clear how your reply addresses the original comment. Perhaps you could fix that by quoting the portions of the original comment you're replying to, rather than requiring line numbers.
    - nxzero 11y ago
      Correct me if I am wrong, but I should format my comment because he refuses to do so, right? He refused to respond to my response to his even in part, though I should spend more time on it, right. My reading of his comment is he didn't read my comment, and he he can't read, there's nothing I am able to do.
      - tempestn 11y ago
        Look, I'm just letting you know that from a third party perspective, you come across as the unreasonable one, both in this sub-thread, and throughout most of these comments. It seems like people are bringing up good points and you're refusing to engage, perhaps because you're so invested in your own point of view that you're unable to recognize the legitimacy of others'. To your specific question, the parent comment's points were well reasoned, and your response read as completely orthogonal. If it wasn't, then yes, the onus is on you to demonstrate the relevance.
      - nxzero 11y ago
        Plain English please, no idea beyond your meta ranting about how I comment on a topic, when your not even express a logic response to my comment. More to the point if you have something to express about the topic, if you want to be meta on comments post a link to an "Ask HN:" state a position in Plain English and post a link to it here. Cheers!
  - jerf 11y ago
    You know, I worried a bit that I was overshooting with my choice of the word "petulant". Thank you for putting that worry to rest. You are not doing the Tor project any favors here.

by nxzero 11y ago

jerf 11y ago

Did you intend this as a reply to something else? I can't even connect your comment to what I said. It starts with "wrong" but doesn't seem to address anything I said.

nxzero 11y ago
Please bullet/number your concerns as self-contained statements and I'll explicitly reference them. And yes, my response is to your comment, though do see how it's possible it's ambiguous to how I'm addressing your concerns. Thanks for the comment.
- tempestn 11y ago
  It's not his job to format his comment to make it convenient for you to rebut. I agree that it's not at all clear how your reply addresses the original comment. Perhaps you could fix that by quoting the portions of the original comment you're replying to, rather than requiring line numbers.
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I should format my comment because he refuses to do so, right? He refused to respond to my response to his even in part, though I should spend more time on it, right. My reading of his comment is he didn't read my comment, and he he can't read, there's nothing I am able to do.
    - tempestn 11y ago
      Look, I'm just letting you know that from a third party perspective, you come across as the unreasonable one, both in this sub-thread, and throughout most of these comments. It seems like people are bringing up good points and you're refusing to engage, perhaps because you're so invested in your own point of view that you're unable to recognize the legitimacy of others'. To your specific question, the parent comment's points were well reasoned, and your response read as completely orthogonal. If it wasn't, then yes, the onus is on you to demonstrate the relevance.
    - nxzero 11y ago
      Plain English please, no idea beyond your meta ranting about how I comment on a topic, when your not even express a logic response to my comment. More to the point if you have something to express about the topic, if you want to be meta on comments post a link to an "Ask HN:" state a position in Plain English and post a link to it here. Cheers!
- jerf 11y ago
  You know, I worried a bit that I was overshooting with my choice of the word "petulant". Thank you for putting that worry to rest. You are not doing the Tor project any favors here.