Pretty much any legacy system can have a modern reverse proxy in front of it. If the legacy application can't handler certs sanely, use the reverse proxy for terminating TLS.
And, if you haven't been using a reverse proxy before, or for business/risk reasons don't want to use your main site's infrastructure to proxy the inherited site, and had been handling certificates in your host's cPanel with something like https://www.wpzoom.com/blog/add-ssl-to-wordpress/ - it is indeed a dedicated project to install a reverse proxy!
The problem is there's not really a good way to subscribe to these things. I'd gladly pay a nominal fee (~$6 USD/mo) for access to media, but I'm not about to subscribe individually to each site. Ideally, I'd subscribe to a single service and payment is split across the various sites in proportion to how many articles I read from each site.
There was a service that promised this a while back, but IIRC mozilla bought and killed it.
This. I trialed Apple News+ so I could read WSJ, Atlantic, New Yorker on my iPad via the native iOS app and immediately dropped my subscription when I started seeing ads sandwiched within the articles. Ridiculous.
Thanks for making this known. On the face of it, it’s a good deal. First party slick app with ad-free good quality news content, with a nominal fee. If you pay the Apple premium, they’ll give you the best possible experience and not clutter your screen with ads, right? Guess not.
> I'd gladly pay a nominal fee (~6/mo) for access to media, but I'm not about to subscribe individually to each site. Ideally, I'd subscribe to a single service and payment is split across the various sites in proportion to how many articles I read from each site.
How many sites would you end up splitting that across? For people who click a lot of links on Hacker News or other social media that could be a dozen or more, easily. Depending on your clicking patterns that could descend into sub-$1 amounts
Meanwhile sites like the New York Times charge $25/month and don’t have to split it with anyone.
I think all of the micropayment or pass-type ideas suffer from the same problem: The dollar amounts people imagine paying are an order of magnitude less than what sites are already charging their customers. There’s a secondary problem where many of the people (not you specifically, just in general) who claim they’d pay for such a pass would move the goalposts as soon as it was available: Either it’s too expensive, they just don’t feel like paying it, or they come up with another justification to continue using paywall bypasses instead of paying anything.
Upper-end estimates for typical web traffic CPC/CPM rates are around 10¢ per click and 0.5¢ per impression. I never click on ads, but let's hypothesize that with very-well targeted ads 5% of people click through. That ends up at around an estimated 1¢ per page view. Even at 5x that rate, I'd be able to read 1000 articles ($5 USD) before even approaching the $6 USD/mo rate I think is reasonable.
That's over 30 articles per day, again at a 5x rate than advertising will return. Will there users that read vastly more than that? Sure. But there's also many readers that will under-utilize the service too.
Just take a look at how YouTube Premium is doing, many creators report that their premium revenue vastly outpaces ad-supported viewers on a per-view basis.
If the revenue doesn't make sense, then you could supplement the revenue with ads for users who exceed a soft cap, or have tiered subscriptions. Something like a basic (1k articles per month)ad-supported subscription for $4, basic ad-free for $6, and unlimited ad-free for $10.
Yes? If they show me one page per year, they can get a few cents per year. That's how it works. If they want more money, they should produce more content worth viewing.
NYT is a good example though - I will not pay for a subscription, since I really don't consume it that much. But I would LOVE to pay for an article / a podcast here and there. Let me pay 50c for this one article and I'd gladly pay for it. Unfortunately this doesn't fit the subscription model and publishers are too afraid (I assume) to offer this additional model since there are a lot of subscribers also paying the full subscription fee and not using the service a lot (just like me).
Like Spotify and how big name artists/record labels shaft all the individual content creators when it comes to revenue sharing. I do pay for Spotify regardless, I would pay about the same for the written equivalent. Not sure if that would be enough to sustain any real investigative journalism though
I use python for serving my local static site development with this custom little bash wrapper script I wrote:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e; [[ $TRACE ]] && set -x
port=8080
dir="."
if [[ "$1" == "-h" || "$1" == "--help" ]]; then
echo "usage: http-server [PORT] [DIRECTORY]"
echo " PORT Port to listen on (default: 8080)"
echo " DIRECTORY Directory to serve (default: .)"
exit 0
fi
if [ -n "$1" ]; then
port=$1
fi
if [[ -n "$2" ]]; then
dir=$2
fi
python3 -m http.server --directory "$dir" --protocol HTTP/1.1 "$port"
It's absolutely (almost) correct! HTTP/0.9 does not require you to send back a status code or any headers. Some modern web servers even recognise a lone "GET /" to mean HTTP/0.9 and will respond accordingly.
This is exactly my point - it successfully accomplishes a very specific task, in a way that is fragile and context dependent, and completely fails to handle any errors or edge cases, or reckon with any complexity at all.
For anyone baffled by this: This works because HTTP/0.9 (just called "HTTP" at the time) worked in an extremely simple way, and browsers mostly retained compatibility for this.
HTTP/0.9 web browser sends:
GET /
Netcat sends:
<!doctype html>
...
Nowadays a browser will send `GET / HTTP/1.1` and then a bunch of headers, which a true HTTP/0.9 server may be able to filter out and ignore, but of course this script will just send the document and the browser will still assume it's a legacy server.
> who cares what experience in your resume was a lie and what not
Just being blunt: that's called Fraud. Making false representations for personal gain (employment, in this case) is one of the classic examples.
It doesn't matter if nobody checks in the moment, or if you usually get away with it, dishonesty is dishonesty. If I were to discover that someone joined my team under false pretenses, you can bet I'll have very little faith in their credibility going forward.
> The Fourth Circuit, reviewing a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, also noted that "fraud is a broad term, which includes false representations, dishonesty and deceit." See United States v. Grainger, 701 F.2d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 947 (1983).
Outright lies? Perhaps but even then it’s not clear if it meets the legal definition in all cases.
Exaggerating, misinterpreting the requirements and not telling the full story with all the details? Well that’s entirely subjective.
> under false pretenses
Like if a person has only has 2 years of professional experience in tech X but the job ad required 5 and he didn’t explicitly declare that during the interview without being bc prompted?
Or claiming that he has experience with technology Y (but it’s non-“professional” experience since he learnt it pn his own and again.. didn’t disclose that during the interview?
Even if that person turns out to be great at his job and you somehow find out he wasn’t 100% honest about some finer points in the interview (who tracks or remembers that stuff anyway?) you’d still feel the same way?
Not the case in my jurisdiction, exaggerating in your resume is not illegal. And I really don't care, call it whatever you want if that makes you feel better. Companies are dishonest all the time to their customers and to their workers and especially to their candidates. Been screwed 3 times by dishonest employers, I'm only reciprocating their attitude.
I'm just playing the game so that I come up on top the same way they are doing it to us. That's capitalism for you, our current system doesn't reward honesty, it rewards those who are unscrupulous, as they end up at the top. Companies aren't religious holier than though, they're unscrupulous chasing profits, and then if that's the case, I can play the same game.
The punishment needs to be commisserate with the crime, and dealt with through due process; to do otherwise is distinctly un-american (see 1st amendment on freedom of assembly, 4th amendment on freedoms from unreasonable state actions: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons[...] against unreasonable searches and seizures", and especially the 5th amendment: "[no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law").
What we are seeing at Colombia University (as well as the country at large) is the continual abridgement of these rights. Note that for the fifth amendendment specifically, the constitution refers to any person, not just citizens. Those here legally are entitled to due process protections under the law.
The following argument relies on the following: (1) Universities historically have been the the catalysts of change through student protest. (2) Peaceful protest is a right of the people that shall not be abridged. (3) Public Universities (being government institutuions themselves; see campus police and jurisdiction) have a duty of care to protect their students.
With the above holding true, the argument against this being a "betrayal" falls facially flat, as it is a severe consequence that the university capitulated to, and had a duty to prevent. The arument boiled down to "they were being disruptive, so we should get rid of them," because the betrayal amounted to the jailing and deportations (or attempted deportations, in some cases) for the "crime" of being nonviolently disruptive in a public place.
Without articulating a legally rationed basis for a criminally sanctionable offense, an equivalent is threatening to jail and deport construction workers when they block a business entryway. In general, you do not have a right to be merely inconvienced by others in a public space.
1M revenue isn't that high a bar to clear in retail, just takes one popular/meme product. After all the COGS/fixed costs are tallied up, that could leave you with significantly less with which to contemplate custom development or platform changes.
I'm not seeing them show up, with or without JS enabled (firefox on android). I might suggest having some interaction for non-js users though (details element, perhaps?)
