Why am I seeing this?You are seeing this because the administrator of this website has set up Anubis to protect the server against the scourge of AI companies aggressively scraping websites. This can…
Why am I seeing this?
You are seeing this because the administrator of this website has set up Anubis to protect the server against the scourge of AI companies aggressively scraping websites. This can and does cause downtime for the websites, which makes their resources inaccessible for everyone.
Anubis is a compromise. Anubis uses a Proof-of-Work scheme in the vein of Hashcash, a proposed proof-of-work scheme for reducing email spam. The idea is that at individual scales the additional load is ignorable, but at mass scraper levels it adds up and makes scraping much more expensive.
Ultimately, this is a hack whose real purpose is to give a "good enough" placeholder solution so that more time can be spent on fingerprinting and identifying headless browsers (EG: via how they do font rendering) so that the challenge proof of work page doesn't need to be presented to users that are much more likely to be legitimate.
Please note that Anubis requires the use of modern JavaScript features that plugins like JShelter will disable. Please disable JShelter or other such plugins for this domain.
Read the original article
Comments
> 'hey, fsck is asking me if I want to repair this: it usually doesn't, maybe I should run this in dry run mode and check what's going on?'.
Man... How many people are going to be know enough about bcachefs internals to make any kind of determination here
By IcePic 2025-06-056:35 This has probably been true for all unix fs's for a really long time. My take on it is that the amount of people that make better decisions than fsck are probably on a first name basis with eachother and I am certainly not one of those, so when fsck says "should we try to fix this?" the only question for me is "did I 'dd' this raw device to somewhere else or not?" but when I have that answer I might aswell let fsck do its best because I am not going to hexedit something into working shape that fsck could not figure out how to fix.
If the data is super important, I'd buy another drive and dd this one over to it somehow, so I can make 1-3-5 attempts at getting it fixed, but when fsck runs, I would let it run.
