I just looked at the fragment.com site to see how much such a number costs.
The lowest possible bid you can currently make, and that is for an auction that has six days to go, so probably not even the final price, is over 100$.
That is an unacceptable price for basic privacy.
A single individual is likely to miss a lot of edge cases that a larger organisation (like the Rust foundation) has thought of while creating the language.
In that sense, I believe following the conventions created by a large and well-known entity is likely to produce better results.
Two reasons I can think of to force the creation of a MS account is to
a) make it easier to get started using MS products (e.g. Office), since you don't need to go through the hassle of creating an account; it just works and
b) once (almost) everyone has a MS account, using MS oauth may become the default login mechanism for many third party services (although Google is already starting to take up this space).
The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons.
The ad industry tends to be a lot more sensitive to certain content than governments are. (For example simple insults can easily get a Youtube video demonitized.)
There's a good chance that the removal of comments regarding killing and war is caused purely by ad regulations.
Without further information, these numbers tell nothing about the actual effects of censorship laws.
Is parsing untrusted images inherently problematic?
If I open my (untrusted) downloads folder using Gnome Files and it displays (and therefore parses) the contained images, is that a security issue I should be concerned about?
(I would have assumed that (e.g.) Javascript in PDFs could be problematic, but not a simple preview.)
Windows is a lot slower than linux, and poses significant hardware requirements. Many people will have to / already have replaced their system in order to be able to run Windows 11. (Windows 11 doesn't even support first gen Ryzen CPUs.)
Linux usually supports hardware for a very long time.
Since (for whatever reason) Microsoft hasn't figured out how to make its store actually useable, Windows users have to download (most of) their apps via the browser. That's not just a lot of effort, it also vastly increases the amount of adware/malware non-technical people download and install.
On linux, installing apps is a breeze; the stores are actually good.
Disk encryption hasn't been an option on (non-pro) Windows until very recently. This means someone who steals your laptop has access to all the data stored on the device.
Linux supported disk encryption since forever.
I could go on. Windows is lacking in various ways.
The only benefit Windows enjoys is being the most used operating system. It is therefore more likely that you're already familiar with Windows and that that specific app you want to use or your employer wants you to use runs only on Windows. (Most notably: Adobe Software, MS Office Software, Video Games.)
The core benefit of using Windows is not even a part of Windows.
The AfD still does not believe in man-made climate change.
How are you supposed to reason about that? If AfD members ignore obvious scientific developments, you can't really do much more than present yet another paper saying that yes, man-made climate change is indeed a thing, just for then to ignore it, too.
You cannot reason with someone who does not want to be reasoned with.
You can claim that many policies by the AfD are made in good faith. (I don't believe that, but I'd be willing to entertain the thought.)
But once you get to something like if climate change exists, there isn't really any way you can argue with reason anymore. You are met with pure denial. Denial, which is used as a base for action that is clearly and actively destructive.
> you need cheap shoes for millions of people to wear every day, and not a lot of those are made in US.
You don't get cheap products in a country where workers aren't cheap.
This isn't an issue of "the US cannot manufacture their own shoes", it's an issue of "the US customers have gotten used to paying prices that are too low to be achievable in humane conditions".
Shoes would become more expensive once you have to pay the workers, but there will still be enough shoes for everyone.
> Even kids want to be influencers, not assembly line workers (and we have to import those too).
Not every kid who wants to be an astronaut becomes an astronaut.
> we used to be a former socialist country that produced everything, from cars to computers, tvs, etc....
The west can and will easily reenter these markets once it becomes profitable or necessary to do so.
Of course this process would be costly and would require quite a few people to change careers, but its far from infeasible
The voters decide who is part of the "ruling class". If the voters choose representatives who only pass laws which benefit themselves, then that is a choice the voters made. If the voters are unsatisfied with their choice, they can change their mind in the next vote.
(Read: The status quo is the status quo because most people are prefer the status quo.)
Elon Musk never passed a law. The representatives chosen by the voters did. These representatives do not magically enter the government; they are selected by the voters. The voters freely decide wether they wish to have representatives who pass laws which are benefitial to Elon Musk.
You are free to run as a candidate, even if you are not a well-connected person. (But of course, the voters will choose to not vote for you.)
> Effectively this means you have no input except for maybe one or two issues you care most about.
You are free to vote for someone who fully represents your opinions (yourself). But noone else will vote for that person. Democracy is about making compromises; the government is an average of people's opinions.
> In practice you do not even get to do that as your representatives are not bound to what they promised to get you to elect them.
This is true. But if a candidate lies to you, you can vote for a different candidate in the next election. Repeatedly reelecting liars is a choice voters make voluntarily.
The reason for bad laws is not that democracy doesn't work. The reason is that democracy does work, and other people keep having the wrong opinions ;)
Do you believe someone who uses Windows, chats on Discord and posts on Instagram cares about surveillance?
I think there are only two groups of people who still care about this:
- Tech people who are willing to give up QoL to cling to privacy-respecting alternatives. (People like us.) These people are a tiny minority which would be irrelevant in any democratic system.
- Old people who haven't yet arrived in the digital age. These are also a minority, and keep becoming fewer.
I think the vast majority of people have fully accepted constant surveillance of their digital activity by companies (and therefore governments) as simply the way things are.
To these people, this law is a benefit to security with zero tradeoff.
Normal people have no online privacy whatsoever anyway.
And only evil people would use encryption and anonymization, right?
(Tangent 1: Goverments could educate people in a representative democracy, too. People could also use the educational material readily available. But I think most people don't want to be educated on the majority of topics.)
(Tangent 2: I don't think direct democracy is a good system. I think that the vast majority of people (including me) are incapable of making good laws. I believe only a trained professional, aka a politician, is capable of understanding and predicting all the possible long term effects a law, such as e.g. a trade deal, can have. I certainly cannot.)
(ETA: I would go so far as to say that this law being controversially debated is the result of representative democracy working well. I'd claim that in a direct democracy it could easily get passed without much scrutiny.)
> The reason is that we let adults choose what to consume.
Do we let adults choose to consume hard drugs?
Do we let adults choose whether they want to wear seatbelts?
No, because adults are stupid too.
> If you go down the path of banning social media feeds because they might be addictive, prepare for the floodgates of banning alcohol, porn, cigarettes, and more.
This does not align with what is happening in reality. Banning addictive things is nothing new. We've banned hard drugs for ages. It did not result in an unstoppable wave of bans.
> Does anyone else find it weird to see so many comments on sites like Hacker News that are in favor of governments regulating what adults can consume? Years ago sites like HN and Slashdot were universally in agreement about internet freedoms, but now it's common to see people inviting government control of the internet for adults. I don't get it.
At least to me internet freedoms are largely about maintaining the freedoms we've already set in the offline world. Spying on people's activity in their home is illegal. Spying on people's activity on their home systems (e.g. their tablet or PC) should be illegal, too. It's about maintaining the rights we already know. It's not about creating new rights, which allow for anything and everything.
On the v8 engine's blog, it is claimed that most of its vulnerabilities are caused by logic issues which Rust wouldn't help with.
Perhaps it's a similar situation for Ladybird.
>Memory safety remains a relevant problem: all Chrome exploits caught in the wild in the last three years (2021 – 2023) started out with a memory corruption vulnerability in a Chrome renderer process that was exploited for remote code execution (RCE). Of these, 60% were vulnerabilities in V8.
> V8 vulnerabilities are rarely "classic" memory corruption bugs (use-after-frees, out-of-bounds accesses, etc.) but instead subtle logic issues which can in turn be exploited to corrupt memory. As such, existing memory safety solutions are, for the most part, not applicable to V8. In particular, neither switching to a memory safe language, such as Rust, nor using current or future hardware memory safety features, such as memory tagging, can help with the security challenges faced by V8 today.
> It is already the case that for the most part whatever we do online is known by some third party entity. Online privacy is essentially dead and has been for many years. I’m not implying this is good or desirable but that it is just the reality of things.
This is a very defeatist point of view. It is still possible to choose not to share the majority of your online activity with third parties.
Online privacy is essentially dead for people who don't bother maintaining it.
My online privacy is still largely intact, and I will do my best to keep it that way.
Because this extends to the whole day, including breaks.
It isn't just about concentrating on individual classes, it is also about creating a culture that isn't focused on and actively promoting excessive smartphone use.
You cannot expect individual children to create cultural change (and thereby socially segregate themselves); such change must be a top down approach to be successful.
>a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses...
They don't need to be. A person addicted to drugs is perfectly capable of creating laws prohibiting drug use.
The "impulse" equivalent for a lawmaker would be that once they feel withdrawal, they will spontaneously pass a law allowing drug use again.
Since (luckily) passing a law is far too complex to happen spontaneously, this scenario cannot occur.
ETA:
>which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corporate CEOs.
If drug use is "only" prevented for the 99% of people who do not fill these roles, that is still a massive improvement.
>Hey, while we’re at it let’s make caffeine a scheduled drug. It’s actually addicting, it’s long we half-life makes it more likely to effect sleep, and its vastly over consumed by everyone starting in middle school.
I think you are trying to address different audiences. While your tips are mostly targeted at people who are already working as programmers, the parent comment's tips are mostly targeted at complete beginners.
E.g. this tip:
- There is no substitute for doing. Less tutorials, more coding.
is directly addressing a common mistake for absolute beginners. Many beginners will read (or worse yet, watch) loads of coding tutorials while doing little themsves. It is an issue a complete beginner encounters and understands.
Your tip on the other hand:
> If you (or your team) are shooting yourselves in the foot constantly, fix the gun
is addressing people working on medium to large projects with internal tooling. That is not a situation a complete beginner finds themselves in; it's a situation someone who already works in programming for a while finds themselves in.
I wouldn't necessarily say your tips are too abstract; they are simply too high level for a complete beginner.
That is not necessarily a bad thing; perhaps the you of 15 years ago already had the basic understanding necessary to be able to comprehend and make use of your tips.
I don't know if that's true for non-developers. (Of course non-developers aren't the target yet, but they hopefully will be in the future.) I'd assume that non-developers are usually the main audience for a project website like this.
Developers can simply look at the Github readme and get their near plain text overview there.
According to a lawsuit in 2020 [1] his friend is right.
From the lawsuit: "Ein gezieltes Fotografieren von fremden Personen ist auch dann unzulässig, wenn die Verwendung ausschließlich privaten Zwecken dienen soll."
Translation via DeepL: "Targeted photography of other people is not permitted even if the use is exclusively for private purposes."
Is very up to date. Is very stable/recoverable. Has many packages. Has reproducible packages. Has a great config system (I do not miss having to learn a new config syntax for each package). Allows for easy compartmentalization of packages.
I find the title of the article to be confusing/ambiguous. If you're not familiar with the company, "humane" could easily be read as an adjective here.
> Bryant did not sue after the articles were published in April 2022, and, in fact, the statute of limitations on defamation claims in Mississippi lapses after one year. But in February 2023, the CEO of Mississippi Today, Mary Margaret White, mischaracterized the reporting at a journalism conference in Miami.
> In May 2023 — a few days after the Pulitzer announcement — Quin sent Mississippi Today a notice of his intention to sue, citing the “embezzlement” remark.
Why are the journalists in trouble if the lawsuit is about something the CEO said?
