Unfortunately that wouldn’t work as this is information inside the PDF itself so it has nothing to do with the file hash (although that is one way to track.)

Now that this is known, It’s not enough to remove metadata from the PDF itself. Each image inside a PDF, for example, can contain metadata. I say this because they’re apparently starting a game of whack-a-mole because this won’t stop here.

There are multiple ways of removing ALL metadata from a PDF, here are most of them.

It will be slow-ish and probably make the file larger, but if you’re sharing a PDF that only you are supposed to have access to, it’s worth it. MAT or exiftool should work.

Edit: as spoken about in another comment thread here, there is also pdf/image steganography as a technique they can use.

Funny, we get more complaints about DuckDuckGo browser than anything else, and that’s one of the few we don’t test on. I know this because I make it a point to have someone from CS tell me about consistent pain points users are having. I wonder how many complaints about Firefox not working your customer service team is getting daily and you just don’t hear about it because they’ve been told to tell users “just say Firefox isn’t a supported browser and to try installing Chrome.”

You should ask someone in CS. Whichever agent bullshits the least (not the manager) - you might learn something.

Almost 3/10 people accessing your sites are using Firefox. All those “images not loading right or whatever” are probably blatant to them, making them think “wow, what an absolute shit website.”

3 out of 10.

Those were your words – you said you would notice a shift like that and adapt, which to me is saying you think you could undo the harm once you noticed it. Maybe you worded it wrong.

Yes, Edge has transitioned to using their own forked version of Chromium under the hood, but they make enough changes that it’s necessary to test for. It’s not like Cromite that takes Chromium and removes some things and change configs. They modify core components of the engine itself.

Sucks that I have to preface but people can be jumpy here. This is genuine curiosity, I’m actually asking, because it’s really probably something I should already know. Can you explain the nuance to me please?

My understanding, speaking mostly of apps/websites, I know jobs can be much different:

Most places have the first factor as a password.

First factor (or “login”) = username+password pair.

For the longest time that was all there was, “your login” was just a login, which meant a username and password combination. Then 2FA/MFA (“2 factor authentication / multi-factor authentication”) came along in the form of username+password combo plus SMS/email/Google Authenticator/Yubikey/etc to verify as the 2nd form of authentication. You can have 3FA 4FA 5FA whatever if you want and if it’s supported by the app/website. So 2FA is MFA, but MFA is not necessarily 2FA.

I know jobs can be set up a lot differently.

MFA - 1 = SFA

aka password login

At that point its out of your hands. Once the users have fully decided only one browser is all they’re going to use, because most websites only develop for that browser (gee sound familiar?) then whoever owns that browser owns the web. That’s the point people are trying to get you to understand and you aren’t getting.

its not like we wont notice a shift like that. It would be very easy to adapt

This has has happened before. It took over a decade to get people to start using other browsers. Your little company can’t wave a magic wand and make the entire internet ecosystem shift, even though you were part of the cause.

Firefox market share is going up. But because small vendors not testing on it, it’s preventing its adoption. So you’re letting Google own the web.

The number of Edge users is only a few % more, do you skip that too? Just check Chrome and Safari and call it a day?

As someone that uses only Firefox and knows others who do, this really surprises me. If a website is broken on Firefox then it’s shitty webdev work and I’ll find another store.

Since its servhold, you may be able to remove the offending content (for a short time, anything public-facing) and then contact reg.xyz to get it unsuspended. You’re right though that’s not very good customer service.

On a related note, it’s possible a misconfiguration allowed some of the contents or index to be shown publicly and it got caught in a search engine and was taken down in an automated DMCA sweep. I believe .xyz is an American registrar so have to respond to DMCA but could be wrong on that. I like to stay with any .TLD that archive uses… md, ph, etc.

https://help.sav.com/hc/en-us/articles/11933048624923-Resolving-serverHold-on-Your-Domain

Njalla just buys domains from major registrars on your behalf and owns them on your behalf. Godaddy, Tucows, etc. It was the owner of the entire .xyz space (gen.xyz) who shut your domain down. Njalla is just passing along the info. Porkbun will do the same.

So you agree words are real and spelling matters?

I just find it odd such a basic blatant spelling mistake was made while this situation is unfolding and being astroturfed to hell.

You wouldn’t think an astronomer would call themselves an astrologer by mistake – much higher chance someone selling fake pretty glass to tourists would say their crystals are good for astronomy.

Since we’re on the subject of spelling things out, I’m questioning the authenticity of the guy who spelled it hobbiest. He may have just made a spelling mistake, we all do it, but 1.) currently heavily astroturfed subject 2.) hobbyists use the word a lot.

You adipisci voluptas wut m8? Rerum omnis distinctio eos aliquid. Asperiores quis illo rem est. Rerum voluptatem ipsa assumenda eum eos est. Voluptas quaerat optio ab eos in eos. Error et et quidem consequatur saepe. Magnam ab et at velit voluptatem illum aliquam sapiente. Sapiente!!

As a grammar and language hobbyist, I’m interested in your spelling of hobbiest. Shouldn’t such a word come up so often in your hobbyist communities that you know how to spell it by now?

Feels like someone living in Texas spelling it Texes.

deleted by creator

Besides the obvious like “correspondence@” and “oc_outreach@” I imagine if you looked at the LinkedIn profiles of the individually named people, most would be in intelligence.

Certainly partly intelligence gathering, but some idiots may have been dumb enough to sign up using their FBI email.

One of my favorite declassified intelligence stories

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0005517761.pdf

*U.S. INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED 250-PAGE FILE ON THE ATTACK BY A UFO ON MILITARY UNIT IN SIBERIA. THE FILE CONTAINS NOT ONLY- MANY DOCUMENTARY PHOTOGRAPHS AND DRAWINGS, BUT ALSO TESTIMONIES BY ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE EVENTS. ONE OF THE CIA REPRESENTATIVES REFERRED TO THIS CASE AS HORRIFIC PICTURE OF REVENGE ON THE PART OF XTRATERRESTRIAL CREATURES, A PICTURE THAT MAKES ONE’S BLOOD ‘FREEZE. ACCORDING TO THE KGB MATERIALS, A QUITE LOW-FLYING SPACESHIP IN THE SHAPE OF SAUCER APPEARED ABOVE A MILITARY UNIT THAT WAS CONDUCTING ROUTINE TRAINING MANEUVERS. FOR UNKNOWN REASONS, SOMEBODY UNEXPECTEDLY LAUNCHED SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE AND HIT THE *UFO. IT FELL TO EARTH NOT FAR AWAY, AND FIVE SHORT HUMANOIDS WITH “LARGE HEADS AND LARGE BLACX EYES” EMERGED FROM IT. IT IS STATED IN THE TESTIMONIES BY THE two SOLDIERS WHO REMAINED ALIVE THAT, AFTER FREEING THEMSELVES FROM THE DEBRIS, THE ALIENS CAME CLOSE TOGETHER AND THEN "MERGED INTO SINGLE OBJECT THAT ACQUIRED A SPHERICAL SHAPE. O THAT OBJECT BEGAN TO BUZZ. AND HISS SHARPLY, AND THEN BECAME BRILLIANT WHITE. IN A FEW SECONDS, THE SPHERES GREW MUCH BIGGER AND EXPLODED BY FLARING UP WITH AN EXTREMELY BRIGHT LIGHT. AT THAT VERY INSTANT, 23 SOLDIERS WHO HAD WATCHED THE PHENOMENON TURNED INTO STONE POLES. ONLY TWO SOLDIERS WHO STOOD IN THE SHADE AND WERE LESS EXPOSED TO THE LUMINOUS EXPLOSION SURVIVED. THE KGB REPORT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE REMAINS OF THE UFO AND THE “PETRIFIED SOLDIERS” WERE TRANSFERRED TO A SECRET SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTION NEAR MOSCOW. SPECIALISTS ASSUME THAT A SOURCE OF ENERGY THAT IS STILL TO EARTHLINGS INSTANTLY CHANGED THE STRUCTURE OF THE SOLDIERS’ LIVING ORGANISMS, KAVING TRANSFORMED IT INTO A SUBSTANCE WHOSE MOLECULAR COMPOSITION IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF LIMESTONE. A CIA REPRESENTATIVE STATED: "IF THE KGB FILE CORRESPONDS TO REALITY, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY MENACING CASE. THE ALIENS POSSESS SUCH WEAPONS AND TECHNOLOGY THAT GO BEYOND ALL OUR ASSUMPTIONS. THEY CAN STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES IF ATTACKED.

That’s a good idea. Send message > Message signed and sent > Receiver opens message, signature bits are hidden, but clicking report sends plaintext with signature included. Only ends up in report queue if signature is valid.

You understood it? Are you Irish? I’m Murkin and I thought it meant running one out from his pocket or something.

Peel a banana in his pocket: Tight-fisted, cheap. Often the phrase is “peel an orange in his pocket.” The idea is that someone is so cheap, he will peel a piece of fruit inside his pocket so no one will see it and ask for a bite. - Don’t Be a Muggins: Learn Some Irish Slang

It’s 10PM. Do you know where your children are?

But really, I’m agreeing with the guy/gal. There’s no ackshually. There are very real consequences to social faux paus. Language isn’t a tangible object you can hood in your hand, but I don’t think anyone would argue that language isn’t real. Societal norms are the same.

It’s as “real” as your name is “real” and is really your name. It may not be a large object visible to the naked eye but it’s still a solid thing stored in neurons of many physical brains.

Can you imagine the response from a woman after your first shower if you were good at applying makeup and used it all the time? “You… you lied to me! Wait, are you gay? I’m so confused right now.”

Thanks for the correction.