I see, thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t sure about the specifics of how they produce their product from the upstream source.

I see what you’re saying. I read it as implying the browser would fake the attestation token. I don’t know the answer, but if their (stated) goal is to stop bots and scrapers, I have to assume it wouldn’t be so simple. After all, a lot of bots and scrapers are literally running an instance of Chrome.

Isn’t someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff,

Yes, upstream Chromium forks will likely try to remove this functionality, but

put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?

This is the part that is not possible. The browser is not doing the attestation; it’s a third party who serves as Attestor. All the browser does is makes the request to the attestor, and passes the attestor’s results to the server you’re talking to. There is no way a change in the browser could thwart this if the server you’re talking to expects attestation.

It may be dead to its users anyway depending on how forceful Google is with this. If Brave doesn’t work on 98.8% of all websites with advertising or indeed on 49.5% of all websites (approximately Google’s ad network’s reach), it becomes as niche as lynx.

Brave is built on Chromium. So, by default, no they are not safe from this. Without extra effort, Brave will have this feature. I don’t know if its feasible but there’s a chance the Brave devs can remove the code from their distribution, but that’s the best case scenario and just puts them in the same position as Firefox: they get locked out because they refuse to implement the spec.

Ah I see you mentioned the cuts are only a few seconds long. This wouldn’t catch that very well.

If you have a server outside of your network you could simply hold open a TCP connection and report when it breaks, but I’ll admit at that point it’s outside of what I’ve had to deal with.

Depends on how much you want to set up. For my purposes, I just check for connectivity every minute, and record true or false as a new row in a sqlite database if there is connectivity.

This is what I use on my raspberry pi,

#!/usr/bin/env python3
from datetime import datetime
import sqlite3
import socket
from pathlib import Path

try:
    host = socket.gethostbyname("one.one.one.one")
    s = socket.create_connection((host, 80), 2)
    s.close()
    connected = True
except:
    connected = False
timestamp = datetime.now().isoformat()

db_file = Path(__file__).resolve().parent / 'Database.sqlite3'
conn = sqlite3.connect(db_file)
curs = conn.cursor()
curs.execute('''CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS checks (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT, timestamp TEXT, connected INTEGER)>
curs.execute('''INSERT INTO checks (timestamp, connected) VALUES (?, ?);''', (timestamp, 1 if connected else 0))
conn.commit()
conn.close()

and I just have a crontab entry * * * * * ~/connectivity_check/check.py >/dev/null 2>&1 to run it every minute.

Then I just check for recent disconnects via:

$ sqlite3 ./connectivity_check/Database.sqlite3 'select count(*) from checks where connected = 0 order by timestamp desc;'

Obviously, it’s not as full-featured as something with configurable options or a web UI etc, but for my purposes, it does exactly what I need with absolutely zero overhead.

Not surprising unfortunately. There’s no accountability or transparency; they can deny any application they want for any reason, and don’t have to tell you why. As long as they don’t come out and say it’s due to being a member of a protected class (which they can act on indirectly, just can’t say it out loud), they can get away with any reasoning.

Oh it’s vile.

Lots of people list a property, take loads of applications, each with a nonrefundable application fee (often $100+), then close the listing and pretend it was leased out. They wait a bit and repeat the play. They can rake in thousands of dollars for literally making a posting on a website, and repeat this often. And it’s often desperate people victimized too: not only are these people renting so they’re already in a vulnerable situation, the people willing to pay high application fees typically are desperate to get a lease.

I’ve also seen places that make you pay an application fee, and as part of the screening process they run a credit check; if they aren’t satisfied with your credit score, they’ll deny you and of course keep the application fee. What’s more nefarious about this though is that they don’t give you a score cutoff; you don’t know if your score meets their criteria until after you’ve paid a nonrefundable fee.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but my first guess is: you pronounce is like the moderately common name Simone.

I don’t have a GitHub account, or I would have just made the fix myself. Need a GitHub account to make an issue, or to do a pull request.

Edit to add: From the cursory glance I gave it, it might be enough to have an inline ternary on this line to use an empty string or real score based on user preference. Sorry if that’s not enough or the right spot to fix it, I didn’t spend too much time looking.