1) Estimated $100M annually. 2) consistently 3) not sure, sources claim most of the income comes from international charity help intercepted 4) I don't know, I am just following HN guidelines and try to extract the meaning from a comment otherwise bound to be down voted.
Also, the least consequential even ignoring often stated fact that cookie banners are malicious compliance. I care much less about cookie banners than about the ads, and for both of I have uBlock origin filters. So, what to be angry about exactly?
To be fair, I don't remember people complaining about cookies. The question is fairly simple, etc. Meanwhile ads? They try to steal the attention. So yeah, lots of friends complain about internet ads, not so many about cookies. I'm EU based.
I think parent commenter meant that what's insane is that js runtime is not treated as an utility which should never be monetized. It's as if GCC developers haven't figured out how to monetize, but they are willing to at some point.
I think "UK citizen" should have been replaced by "person acting from within the UK". This is how it is defined in the context of GDPR - the nationality doesn't matter, what matters is where you are when you are provided services.
Let me play devil's advocate: for some reason, functions such as strcpy in glibc have multiple runtime implementations and are selected by the dynamic linker at load time.
Materialized views in ScyllaDB are (were?) known to be a buggy implementation. In particular, they often depended on the cluster being healthy at the time of propagating the changes.
I'm not sure what do you mean. Statement "open source models can just add a clause to the terms of use, restricting how it can be used" is false, because in that case, it won't be open source. Does it mean that the open source needs to comply with the laws? Absolutely, but that might mean that open source models are effectively illegal.
I think the point here is that so that people reading the article don't complain about "they didn't contain GPL code directly" somehow justifies thinking that that was bikeshedding and not a legitimate violation of the license.
Of course, it does not matter if the code was modified or not, but that point might not be clear to the readers who don't have enough experience with GPL.
Indeed this is. For some reason, all the implementations that I can recall suffer from some usability problems. I expect that if a solution that is acceptable for Durov is discovered, they will roll it out. Of course, my prediction might be wrong.
I think it is pretty obvious why Durov did not opt for universal E2EE. His main purpose of making Telegram was to make the chat app that is the most usable of all. E2EE comes with a cost on user experience which was for him too high.
Example: Signal can't handle more than one phone logged in, and if for some case you don't open the desktop app for more than 30 days, it logs you out there and you can never get these messages to the desktop.
Uuh, any kind of dev box that requires more RAM than available? I promise you that storing that much data about the runtime can be really memory consumptive.
This doesn't matter, if libxml2 loads .so and the library is malicious, you are already potentially compromised, as it is possible to run code on library load.