I've seen a lot of discussion about YouTube banning adblockers, but as a user of Firefox + uBO, I have never seen it happen for me. Perhaps the Firefox extension ecosystem makes it easier to push blocklist updates or something. Or YouTube's detection is browser-specific and they bothered with the largest first.
Google will make a change to its ads to get around the adblockers, but no change they make gets deployed all at once.
Instead they spread their updates over users 0.1% at a time over an hour or so. That way if youtube stops working for that fraction of users, they can cancel and rollback the update.
Sometimes this means that you might be in that tiny fraction of users who gets a change before the devs who maintain the UBO lists, and sometimes that change is related to ads.
(It's only happened to me twice in the last 2 years)
In this case, you don't need to mess around with other extensions, you just need to wait an hour or so until those devs have seen Google's changes and they can push their own updates to reblock the new ads.
If you want it to go faster, you can go to the github issues pages for the filterlists and they have instructions for how to get uBlock Origin to generate a blob of debug info to post on github to speed up their updates.
Interesting, thanks for the insights. The next time I feel frustrated enough I'll have to do that.
Part of me was considering just self-hosting an alternative YT frontend. At this point I'm sorta happy with how YT slowly has decreased its usage in my life
They need to just give up and stop fighting the ad-blockers: they can't win, unless they try to force everyone to use a special app to watch YouTube, which obviously isn't going to fly.
There's plenty of losers out there who can't or won't use ad-blockers that they can make their ad money on; trying to harass the 20% of users who use ad-blockers is just an arms race they can't win.
Are you logged in to Youtube? People are saying that the YouTube anti-blocking measures are kicking in for logged-in users, but not for anonymous users.
Yes, there is no question about that the uBlock Origin works regardless of your YouTube session status. The question is whether YouTube's countermeasures kick in or not: nagging you to turn it off, or stop playback.
The issue isn't whether you see ads or not, but whether YouTube is nagging you to turn off your ad blocking on threat of video playback being suspended after a few videos.
If you can check any given bitstring for whether it encodes a valid ZFC proof of the (in)consistency of ZFC in finite time, then you can write a program to enumerate over all possible bit strings in shortlex order and halt the first time you see a valid proof.
There are infinite many such strings, so that alone can't be used to prove the Turing machine of k states can check all strings. So that leaves open the original question, how do we know that a Turing machine of k states is able to have one of the stated outcomes for any possible bit string?
From my own understanding its neither (unless by "remote" you don't mean Oxide). From my understanding there's no involvement of Oxide in running the computer. You should never need to talk to them to configure anything nor should you ever need to talk to them if you want to flash the firmware with something else entirely.
But it still shows an icon on every non-english page despite me disabling the entire feature. Like back then with the unremovable Pocket button. What's the point of the program letting me unclutter the UI with the "customize toolbar" feature when it's constantly blocked for Mozilla's annoying feature of the month?
How do you make the new machine compute BB(754)? BB is the canonical example of an uncomputable function, precisely because you can decide the halting problem if you can compute it (or any upper bound). Granted, BB may be computed for specific arguments, as OP mentions for 1–4, but the existence of the ZFC-dependent machine is, at least to me, a very good argument that the boundary of what's possible is much lower.
Oh, sure. I was just pointing out that the hardness is in determining the busy beaver number and that it didn’t matter if your algorithm halts iff ZFC is consistent or if it’s an algorithm that halts iff ZFC is inconsistent.
No, if you had an algorithm that (you could prove) halts iff ZFC is consistent, then if that algorithm halts, you’ll have a proof that ZFC is consistent, which isn’t possible. Thus, the existence of such an algorithm would be a contradiction that proves the inconsistency of ZFC.
The problem with your construction is that it relies on knowing the value of BB(754), which is impossible to know so long as ZFC is consistent, since its value is dependent on the consistency of ZFC.
Conversely, if ZFC is inconsistent, then there exists a (finite) proof of this fact, so the opposite case isn’t a problem.
Essentially it’s like saying define X to be the length of the shortest proof of the inconsistency of ZFC, if one exists. If I could prove any upper bound on X, I could prove the consistency of ZFC, which, according to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, would itself prove the inconsistency of ZFC.
The intuition is that a monkey typing randomly on a typewriter can come up with texts which either are or aren't valid proofs of ZFC or not, and each one which is a valid proof either is a proof of a contradiction or not. To check either of these things is mechanical. If ZFC is inconsistent, eventually the monkey should hit on the inconsistency.
It’s an unknown integer, whose value depends on the consistency of ZFC. Let me show you why this is circular.
I can define another integer N which is 1 if there exists a proof of the inconsistency of ZFC and 0 if there doesn’t (note that BB(754) already encodes this information). Then I can define a program that determines the consistency of ZFC thusly: if N=1, I define the program to immediately return false. If N=0, I define the program to immediately return true. Thus, there exists a program that can determine the consistency of ZFC, it’s one of the two programs I’ve defined.
The fact that there exists a program that returns the consistency of ZFC isn’t in question. The trick is proving that a particular program does so. Or if you like, proving that there exists a program along with a proof that it does so. What you’ve defined is an oracle: it depends on already knowing the answer to what you’re asking so it doesn’t have to compute it.
BB(754) is an uncomputable number. It's independent of ZFC, so an enumeration of all consequences of axioms of ZFC doesn't contain it. How is that supposed TM of yours is supposed to know whether it has run BB(754) steps or not?
Oh, but other slightly bigger TMs exist – lets say in class TM(860) for the sake of an example – that might halt with after a more steps than BB(754). This _sounds_ intuitive. But: how do you prove that? It might be that all TM(860)s either halt within BB(754) steps or then run forever. There indeed might be some that halt in finite steps after BB(754), but that is not guaranteed! You need to prove it. But with what?
Oops, never mind, there exists a simple construction that you can perform to each TM(754) that clearly extends BB(754) a finite amount. Maybe you are corrent that such Turing machine exists. But seems that identifying it isn't possible in ZCF.
I’m saying that all you’ve proven is that if you know a priori whether ZFC is consistent, you can construct a Turing machine that returns this value. If you consider that to be window dressing I don’t know what else I can tell you.
The standards claim that the existence of such a (SEED, a, b) tuple is enough to show that there is nothing special about the curve in question. But if one in a billion curves have a special property that only you know about, which would make it easier for you to attack the cryptosystem, you can try a variety of different SEED values until you find a desirable curve.
I don't think we can complain that there were retries over different human-readable seeds to make an appearance of "verifiably at random" design if the chosen human-readable seeds just haven't been published at all.
And if the argument is that the publishing of human-readable seeds was unnecessary because the retries of the procedure could have been performed until some exploit was possible, why even define and publish these definitions? Was it an error? Or something else?
- Multi-party computation. Too much overhead for something like this.
- Remote attestation, as seen in e.g. Intel SGX. Usually provided by the CPU vendor. Not a cryptographic guarantee, more of a "it'd be very hard to defeat this if you're not Intel". Probably not that warrant-resistant.
