|
raddevus wrote: What's up with Search Engines?
In general terms? Too many ads, too much AI-generated BS, and too much keyword-stuffing SEO-optimised crap filling the first page(s) of results for them to be much use any more. 
At least DDG doesn't suffer too much from the first two.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, that brings back fun memories. 
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting. Looks like the problem with DuckDuckGo was actually related to Bing.
The Brave browser tweeted this (image of tweet)[^].
Was actually a Bing API issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 4/6*
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟨🟩⬛⬛
🟩⬛🟩⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 5/6
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟨🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
One encircled yellow 💛 among greens 💚.
modified yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 5/6
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 5/6
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
All 🟩.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 3/6*
⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
🟩⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 5/6
⬜⬜🟩⬜🟨
🟩⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟨🟩⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 5/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟨⬛⬛⬛
🟨🟨⬛⬛⬛
🟩⬛🟩⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 4/6*
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,069 4/6
🟩⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟩⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟨🟩⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
I have just spent 5 hours on the cellphone/remote with a colleague trying to help out her friend who is in charge of their org's WordPress site. The last hour and a half were spent trying to find/fix an issue on my colleague's computer where the strangest thing happened whilst adding a new page/report.
When she tried to browse to any page for the site, html tags/code was displaying on the screen instead of being rendered. It also happened w/Edge. At the time, her friend was still able to access the same site, as was I. After her friend logged off and back on, she also started getting the same thing. Meanwhile, I'm still able to browse the site, login to wp, etc. but neither of them can. 
No matter what page she goes to, the same code is coming back which leads me to believe that a wp plugin or maybe even something upstream on the host is blocking the request and stupidly spitting out malformed html/headers. The intended page is some sort of self-submitting form with elemets using the name wsidchk that seems possibly to be related to cloudflare.
What I've tried:
0: Being as annoying as possible since I really didn't want to help in the first place, and I despise long phone calls.
1: Verifying that a cloudflare plugin is not active on their site.
2: Temporarily turning off the only security related plugin. (meant to prevent login abuse)
3: Deleting her browser cache and trying Edge. Edge also displayed the html code.
4: Tried on my 2 systems with multiple browsers. It works on my machines!  Not just the site, but the things that they needed help before they were unable to access the site. Everything works as it should, I've done what you needed me to do. Is it really now my problem that you are having problems accessing your website?
The real problem is that my colleague's friend has contracted with a 'webmaster' who seems to be inept when it comes to anything dynamic such as a report involving php script and mysql.
At any rate, I have been provided with credentials to manage their WP, and as of now, I'm the only one who can actually access the site.  I've got a good mind to start billing by the hour! My day is shot! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: I have been provided with credentials to manage their WP,
Congratulations on becoming sorry, you're now their web site admin.
|
|
|
|
|
Did I mention that I despise WP/PHP/MySQL? They couldn't pay me enough!...well everything's negotiable but I would have to insist on a proper web application, not wordpress.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: When she tried to browse to any page for the site, html tags/code was displaying on the screen instead of being rendered. It also happened w/Edge.
It's not strange at all. The web server was configured incorrectly and was most likely serving the document as plain text. They got the wrong mime type.
kmoorevs wrote: After her friend logged off and back on, she also started getting the same thing. Meanwhile, I'm still able to browse the site, login to wp, etc. but neither of them can
Could be a number of reasons. The most common one is you still had a cached copy of the site or vice versa. Could also be more than one server in a farm responding to the request depending on location where only one server out of N is configured incorrectly, etc.
kmoorevs wrote: 0: Being as annoying as possible since I really didn't want to help in the first place, and I despise long phone calls.
There's this magical phrase called "No thanks". Try it. Unless you're romantically interested in this chick, there's no need to bend over backwards.
kmoorevs wrote: 1: Verifying that a cloudflare plugin is not active on their site.
This may explain a lot. Cloudflare does MIME types and also caches. Maybe someone who didn't know what they were doing "set it up".
kmoorevs wrote: 3: Deleting her browser cache and trying Edge. Edge also displayed the html code.
So it sounds like the working version is the cached version.
kmoorevs wrote: The real problem is that my colleague's friend has contracted with a 'webmaster' who seems to be inept when it comes to anything dynamic such as a report involving php script and mysql.
Yeah but that's not your problem. It's not being mean to value your time. If they want your assistance they can pay for it; otherwise, they should not be in business.
kmoorevs wrote: At any rate, I have been provided with credentials to manage their WP, and as of now, I'm the only one who can actually access the site
You mean access the backend or public site? I'm willing to bet you're not the only one that can access the public site.
kmoorevs wrote: I've got a good mind to start billing by the hour! My day is shot!
Imagine going to a doctor or lawyer and expecting them to work for free because someone knows someone. Why is it devs are the only ones with not enough backbone to say "nope, not for free"?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
"Imagine going to a doctor or lawyer and expecting them to work for free because someone knows someone. Why is it devs are the only ones with not enough backbone to say "nope, not for free"?
because most of us start as salary. And devs tend to be terrible at business. Hint for anyone who is contemplating going into business, learn how to ask for money. The tech stuff is easy 
I recommend watching as many of these videos as possible: Toodaloo! - YouTube[^]
It's been eye opening to me.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You mean access the backend or public site? I'm willing to bet you're not the only one that can access the public site.
a: I've got access to cPanel, WP, and a login for the site. I didn't want it, but I've got it.
b: That was one of the most frustrating things. There was nothing wrong with the site, they were just being blocked. It's like helping your neighbor change a tire and afterwards the car won't start...it must be something you did right? It was working fine until you messed with it...makes me want to put the flat back on.
Anyway, within a few hours the mystery error went away...and I've just seen an email from the site owner with a new list of problems. 
I'm still confused about the whole thing though and I hate not understanding what caused it. Here is the exact code that showed up in their browsers. There's really not too much here to search on, but maybe you can understand/decipher that east/west stuff.
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8″>
<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow">
<title>One moment, please…</title>
<style>
body {
background: #F6F7F8;
color: #303131;
font-family: sans-serif;
margin-top: 45vh;
text-align: center;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Please wait while your request is being verified…</h1>
<form id="wsidchk-form" style="display:none;" action="/z0f76a1d14fd21a8fb5fd0d03e0fdc3d3cedae52f" method="get">
<input type="hidden" id="wsidchk" name="wsidchk"/>
</form>
<script>
(function(){
var west=+((+!+[]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![])+(+!+[]+!![]+[])+(+![])+(+!+[]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+[])+(+![])+(+!+[]+[])+(+!+[]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![])),
east=+((+!+[])+(+!+[]+!![]+[])+(+![])+(+!+[]+!![]+!![]+[])+(+!+[]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![])+(+!+[]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+[])+(+!+[]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![])+(+!+[]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+[])),
x=function(){try{return !!window.addEventListener;}catch(e){return !!0;} },
y=function(y,z){x() ? document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",y,z) : document.attachEvent("onreadystatechange",y);};
y(function(){
document.getElementById(‘wsidchk’).value = west + east;
document.getElementById(‘wsidchk-form’).submit();
}, false);
})();
</script>
</body>
</html>
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: Anyway, within a few hours the mystery error went away...and I've just seen an email from the site owner with a new list of problems. 
Give him a bill rate man. As long as you work for free, those requests will never stop.
kmoorevs wrote: There's really not too much here to search on, but maybe you can understand/decipher that east/west stuff.
The dev that wrote this is a rookie. He/she obfuscated poorly and in doing so made the script larger. Guessing they tried to hide an account ID that never should've been on the client to begin with. Who knows.
Here's the unobfuscated version with the IIFE removed for clarity and cleaned up. There's no east variable.
var west = 12038859;
var x = function(callback) {
if (window.addEventListener)
document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", callback, false);
else
document.attachEvent("onreadystatechange", callback);
};
x(function() {
document.getElementById('wsidchk').value = west + east;
document.getElementById('wsidchk-form').submit();
});
Jeremy Falcon
modified 16hrs ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll admit I have a lot of reading to catch up with to reach the level of understanding about networks that I'd like to have. Well, specifically, subnetting.
After some going back and forth with ChatGPT for about half an hour (trying to get it to rephrase its answers to try to show it that previous answers were clearly wrong), I've only managed to become less certain about many things, but I'm hoping I've at least come to one correct conclusion:
I want the valid IP range on my home network to be restricted to 192.168.X.Y, where X ranges from 1 through 31, and Y ranges from 1 through 254 (with the understanding that, for all intents and purposes, you never directly assign [whatever].0 or [whatever].255 to a device).
So, the subnet I should be using is 255.255.224.0 (so for the third octet I could use everything between 1 through 31).
What I haven't been able to get out of ChatGPT is whether a machine configured with an IP between 192.168.32.1 and 192.168.255.254 would fail to reach the rest of the systems on 192.168.[1-31].[1-254]. It sounds right to me, but until I try, I'm just guessing.
Generally, I configure all of my systems with a static IPv4 address. And I want all systems within my network to be able to see each other, just to keep things simple.
Am I right at least so far, with that subnet of 255.255.224.0?
Further discussion:
The idea is - for the third octet - the 255 devices under "1" would be my physical machines. My laptops would be under "2". Printers under "3". My first VM host would be at 10 (192.168.10.1). VMs it hosts would be 192.168.10.2 through .254. My second VM host would be 192.168.11.1; its VMs would range from 192.168.11.2 through 254, etc.
Of course that leaves some big gaps within each range, but it does keep things organized (at least in my mind it does). I'm no network admin; do people segregate things this way?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: do people segregate things this way?
No, it is overkill. If the number of hosts is under 255, and I suspect for a home network this is the case, You can just use a traditional netmask like 255.255.255.0. If you want to "organize" hosts you can still do something like 1 to 30 computers; 40 to 100 VMs; printers, something else.
If you set a netmask like you want 255.255.224.0, that is also, ok but it's not going to exclude the hosts with 0 and 255. So a host like 192.168.2.0 is perfectly acceptable Only the end for the range is going to be treated differently: the 192.168.31.255 is going to be the broadcast address for your network.
Sub-netting is usually done for the exact opposite of your reason: when you want hosts not to be visible outside their own sub-nets.
More thoughts:
- set up a DHCP server for random things that land on your network (phones, friends, etc.). Give it a range distinct from your fixed hosts.
- set up a DNS server and give meaningful names to your devices instead of relying on IP addresses.
I'm using a RPi for both the DNS and DHCP server. It is more than enough for my needs.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Some good thoughts in there, thanks for that.
I probably do have less than 255 devices (VMs included), but if I want set ranges within a total max of 255 entries, it won't be long before I run out of space and just go back to having to find a gap somewhere, and it'll be ad-hoc again.
I didn't bring DHCP into the discussion just to keep it simple. I do want to let my router assign (say) .1 through .25 for random devices that show up, but stick with static IPs for everything else that should "always be present".
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
