CyberChef has been around for many years now, which definitely helps. It also has no plans for monetization and runs entirely locally, so there's no chance of a 'rug pull'. It was a long journey to the current ~800k monthly users though. I suspect it was just time and place, as opposed to any technical reasons.
There's a lot of CyberChef hosted domains that aren't hosted by GCHQ. It's open source, so they're doing nothing wrong, but we can't provide assurances about the code on those sites. The official URL is https://github.com/gchq/CyberChef.
CyberChef supports offline usage, just save the page!
If you want a "quick" way to add a bunch more operators, all of ours are available via the 'cyberchef' NPM package[0] and the license permits embedding into other applications.
It uses a combination of magic bytes (like the `file` command), entropy analysis and character frequency detection to determine whether an output is likely to be of interest to the user.
The file type mechanism is written here[0]. There's a list of all signatures we detect here[1]. The magic implementation is here[2].
I don't believe that's true. Consider this infinite generator:
async function* infinite() {
while (1) {
yield 'example'
}
}
(async function () {
for await (const value of infinite()) {
console.log(value)
}
})()
If the generator was consumed all at once, this would never print (because the generator is infinite). `for await... of` should only consume a single step of the stream / generator at a time. It's just syntactic sugar for the usual calls to .next() and etc. See the docs here[0]
We use both Dependabot and CLA Assistant on one of our projects. It's an easy setting in CLA Assistant to whitelist Dependabot, although it did catch us out in the beginning.
I don't actually want to allow dependabot. The reason is then Dependabot becomes a contributor, but it didn't sign the CLA. I think that's a problem. I don't want issues with my code ownership or my company's!
Running a bot against your repository doesn’t make the bot a contributor. Does running an autoformatter against your code make the formatter a contributor? Does github making the merge commit on a PR make github a contributor?
This is just a repo with two bots turned on. Really confused why people are upvoting it.
It actually does. You can see dependabot listed in the contributors when a project accepts its contributions. I think the legal ramifications of this are significantly unadjudicated as to be concerning. In affect, you’ve made GitHub a contributor to your project so now Github has some ownership possibly and I don’t want anyone being a contributor without signing the CLA for my business critical projects.
I understand if you’re not concerned about this for your own projects, but I feel differently. Hope you can respect that.
To explain why people are voting it: I think it’s kind of a funny situation where you have these two bots and they’re both supposed to be helpful but the bots don’t actually cooperate with each other like the dependabot doesn’t sign the CLA I think it’s quite funny.
I understand if you don’t find funny, no worries! I guess other people appreciate it too. It’s OK if you don’t! The world is the diverse place. Hope you have a good day :)
One difference with your example is the use of the structure of collaboration of open source development.
Speaking of SponsorBlock? Does it affect the YouTuber revenue stream. Sponsors are not YouTube and not the owner of the video. They probably don't know the audience of the sponsored segment. It may affect the number of clicks on affiliate links, but I guess SponsorBlock users don't click much anyways.
