lordsper

I take it you mean they don't want you to work there?

Or it means: you value your equity at $0 a year, and your HR guys get a bonus for reducing expenses.

Yeah, but the adblockers will win in the end.

Worst case: we lose all bandwidth winnings, and have to simulate functioning ads to content distributors.

P.S.: NoScript blocks the Javascript warning for me, unless I allow the bild.de domain. The adblock-blocker only works with NoScript fully disabled. I'm using Firefox with uBlock and NoScript.

This is an advertorial for a VPN provider. Can this be removed?

edit: To elaborate, I think this article ads little in terms of technical or other novelty, and is also not newsworthy. It merely describes the history of this one VPN provider who happens to have a mobile client that's been used against censorship in some cases.

Weren't most of the suicides hoaxes? Like the "cut4bieber" hoax?

I've never encountered one, but maybe that was "before my time".

What kind of breaches do you fear with your air-gapped setup?

Adblockers take care of that. I run NoScript for security and not because it makes pages look prettier - believe me, it doesn't.

I see hiding the content of the site for lack of JS simply as lazy web development, which only considers the most common use case. I don't bother visiting sites who don't support NoScript or text-mode browsers such as Links2.

Not under the same name, but they might just survive if they go for a (more subtle) rebrand.

Except there's already a verified dump out there:

40AE8A90DE40CA3AFA763C8EDB43FC1FC47D75F1

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it just won't work.

Or you don't do 'security' features client-side, and instead only send the hint data in response to the user's request for the hint.

Wouldn't that be the 'right' way of doing this?