Hard to untangle the different things going on in this article
> [their crimes] led to the "deaths of six Chinese nationals, one Chinese national's suicide and injuries to several others,"
So it's not just running a fraud center
> Five defendants were given life imprisonment, while sentences ranging from three to 20 years were given to nine others.
Who is this about now?
> Many people staffing the fraud factories say they were trafficked into the hubs [...] [employees say they] were regularly beaten and tortured by their bosses
Is this how deaths and injuries were "lead to", from the earlier quote appearing much earlier in the article?
This article is such a mess, I'd open the court case if I had any chance of knowing what I'm looking at or having any vague familiarity with the legal system. Not that the court documents are linked anywhere. Why give up sources if you can get clicks I guess. It's interesting to read about nevertheless, e.g. I didn't know the work was performed under duress
These scam centers are run by criminal organizations and staffed by basically slaves. They're often tricked into coming, many from outside the country the center is located in, by false promises of legitimate employment, only to wind up imprisoned in the compound where they're forced to conduct scam operations under threat of beatings, torture, even death. It's a pretty horrible state of affairs.
In 2022 42 Vietnamese workers fleeing human trafficking were captured on video as they escaped from a clandestine call center in a Cambodian casino, where they were being held against their will, and crossed the neighbouring river on foot, which separates Cambodia from Vietnam: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/casino-workers-082...
It's not an inherent feature, but they steer it in such a way so, no, there isn't (at least not for long), unless someone would make a good case for it at some point in the future
The interesting question would be what their currency, where this 11% is offered, typically loses year-on-year
Closed-source code isn't that much less secure than open one that I think this is a legitimate worry, especially in this case where the obfuscation doesn't sound like it was effective much
What sort of size would be needed to get on there?
My open source project has some daily users, but not thousands. Plenty to attract malicious content, I think a lot of people are sending it to themselves though (like onto a malware analysis VM that is firewalled off and so they look for a public website to do the transfer), but even then the content will be on the site for a few hours. After >10 years of hosting this, someone seems to have fed a page into a virus scanner and now I'm getting blocks left and right with no end in sight. I'd be happy to give every user a unique subdomain instead of short links on the main domain, and then put the root on the PSL, if that's what solves this
Based on what I've seen, there's no way to get that project into the PSL. I would recommend you to have the content available at projectcontent.com if the main site is project.com, though. :)
I have the same issue. Think of my site as WeTransfer, but instead of only files, you can also use it as a link shortener or pastebin. Abuse works the same as on every other site or service: I do spot checks and users can report content. This was fine until uBlock Origin decided the website was malicious, per one of the lists that is default-enabled for everyone
That list doesn't have a clear way to get off of it. I would be happy to give them the heads up that their users are complaining about a website being broken, but there is no such thing, neither for users nor for me. In looking around, there's many "sources" that allegedly independently decided around the same day that my site needs to not work anymore, so now there's a dozen parties I need to talk to and more popping up the further you look. Netcraft started sending complaints to the registrar (which got the whole domain put on hold), some other list said they sent abuse to the IP space owner (my ISP), public resolvers have started delisting the domain (pretending "there is no such domain" by returning NXDOMAIN), as well as the mentioned adblockers
There's only one person who hasn't been contacted: the owner. I could actually do something about the abusive content...
It's like the intended path is that users start to complaint "your site doesn't work" (works for me, wdym?) and you need to figure out what software is it they're using, what DNS resolver they use, what antivirus, what browser, if a DOH provider is enabled... to find out who it might be that's breaking the site. People don't know how many blocklists they're using, and the blocklists don't give a shit if you're not a brand name they recognize. That's the only difference between my site and a place like Github: if I report "github.com hosts malware", nobody thinks "oh, we need to nuke that malicious site asap!"
I'd broaden the submitted post to say that it's not only Google with too much power, but these blocklists have no notification mechanism or general recourse method. It's a whack-a-mole situation which, as an open source site with no profit model (intentionally so), I will never win. Big tech is what wins. Idk if these lists do a trademark registration check or how they decide who's okay and who's not, but I suspect it's simply a brand name thing and your reviewer needs to know you
> Luckily, Google provided me with a helpful list of the offending sites
Google is doing better than most others with that feature. Most "intelligence providers", which other blocklists like e.g. Quad9 uses, are secretive about why they're listing you, or never even respond at all
Might as well take the work that's already done though? I can't think of a logical reason why you'd want to run it at potentially half the speed (depending on the hot code specifics how much, if any, speedup you get of course)
I was happy to see it supports a fairly recent Python3 at all now, like Py3.5 or what is it that ships with most of the expected stuff? Works for me, I'd target something like that for compatibility anyway
When it's a drop-in replacement, as in most of my code (and it's dead simple to try if it runs when you use pypy ./main.py), I wouldn't know why you should run the code 5-50% slower for no reason though
I keep wondering the same. It's a significant speed-up in most cases and equally easy to (apt) install
For public projects I default the shebang to use `env python3` but with a comment on the next line that people can use if they have pypy. People seem to rarely have it installed but they always have Python3 (often already shipped with the OS, but otherwise manually installed). I don't get it. Just a popularity / brand awareness thing I guess?
I take it this is supposed to be the equivalent of fib(40), which ran on the author's system in Pyπ in 6.59 seconds and apparently on yours, with Raku, in 0.21?
Do you have the same hardware as the author or should one of you run the other's variant to make this directly comparable?
No, this is very much not the same. The Raku version is like writing this in Python:
def fibonacci():
a, b = 0, 1
while True:
yield a
a, b = b, a+b
And taking the 40th element. It's not comparable at all to the benchmark, that's deliberately an extremely slow method of calculating fibonacci numbers for the purpose of the benchmark. For this version, it's so fast that the time is dominated by the time needed to start up and tear down the interpreter.
> [their crimes] led to the "deaths of six Chinese nationals, one Chinese national's suicide and injuries to several others,"
So it's not just running a fraud center
> Five defendants were given life imprisonment, while sentences ranging from three to 20 years were given to nine others.
Who is this about now?
> Many people staffing the fraud factories say they were trafficked into the hubs [...] [employees say they] were regularly beaten and tortured by their bosses
Is this how deaths and injuries were "lead to", from the earlier quote appearing much earlier in the article?
This article is such a mess, I'd open the court case if I had any chance of knowing what I'm looking at or having any vague familiarity with the legal system. Not that the court documents are linked anywhere. Why give up sources if you can get clicks I guess. It's interesting to read about nevertheless, e.g. I didn't know the work was performed under duress
reply