krono

Shouldn't moderators and active users (through posting, commenting, voting/curating, etc.) then at the very least get a discount? After all, those people are and have been compensating the platform for any lost ad income far beyond even that $2/mo.

Personally I'm not able to do so and never heard anyone else claim to possess that ability either. That is not to say I don't believe it might be possible to some - I just haven't come across it.

Before my own ADHD diagnosis and treatment my hyperfocus used to kick in at the most random times and it often lead me to spend far too much time on tangential or superfluous tasks or topics. My medication allows me to channel the hyperfocus into more productive directions, but it still happens when it happens.

A very interesting take that is entirely new to me and which I'm going to need some time to think about.

For context, the specific part of the comment (that is now hidden and inaccessible) that I responded to with my Golden Rule edit boiled down to: If other websites don't hold themselves to the Asahi code of conduct, why shouldn't the Asahi website be allowed to break them too?

Its uncontrollability makes it as much of a blessing as a curse in a way not dissimilar to ADHD's hyperfocus phenomenon. Memories are the brain's interpretation of reality and therefore not always reliable, the ability cannot be switched on or off at will, and other people don't always appreciate or understand it which leads to many awkward situations.

Sabotaging incoming traffic from a specific source with an audience that's generally very excited about your work is just lame. Especially so when you consider their problem with HN seems to be with the way it's being managed rather than its visitors.

Not very welcoming, helpful, considerate, or respectful at all. https://asahilinux.org/code-of-conduct/

In response to @anlaw below: The golden rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

They are servants of those communities, not their owners. Or at least that's how things used to be.

We each have our own versions of the world, true, but at least when I think about my grandma I'm only fooling myself.

With the dead person's agency no longer involved, even without malicious intent, any feelings or behaviour such a construct might generate in its users will be artificial and manipulative.

This type of AI would have the potential to become a true basilisk with poisonous breath and all.

What we call pests often fulfil such important roles in nature that we'd be hopelessly effed without them. They only become a problem when they decide to come and live in our homes, eat from our food, and lay eggs in our beds.

So since we're stuck with them, the best thing we can do is to try and prevent this problematic behaviour from taking place. If that somehow fails things are going to get nasty for a while.

That's also my experience with the official clients after their recent big update. It constantly crashed and did all sorts of weird stuff so I uninstalled it and have started using their web client for playback + a quick and dirty GUI for their API to fill in some of the missing features like playing a playlist sorted by last added, proper random shuffle, actually stop playing when queue ends, etc.

This project looks good though, will have to try it later and see if it works any better for me.

The type of decisions those chore-bots make are rather inconsequential, whereas the ones that will decide which digital content you can trust or whether its something you shouldn't want to see could get very nasty.

This latter type is already heading our way and I posted a comment about it a few days ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35850279

The point I was trying to make is that wishlist, shopping cart, and similar features were missing for the longest time, not at all what you'd consider "extra, non-core features it took Steam two decades to build"

No end of consumer hostile practises, undeclared telemetry gathering, half-baked service even today (is there a wishlist yet?), basically ran by the Chinese government through Tencent.. ok that last one is a semi-joke.

There are many valid and grave complaints people have regarding them, not merely some princess and the pea type things as how you make it out to be.

To clarify I'm not against passkeys and WebAuthn, only leery of the gang and their games.

With that out of the way: I'm alright with you, that hypothetical mother of 3, Average Joe, and anyone else accepting the situation as is no matter the reason. Myself, though, however pointless it may be, I haven't given up the fight and I'm likely worse off for it. I suppose that makes me a masochist.

Everything you say is true, and yet none of it relevant for the sceptical and cynical thoughts that I sometimes share here. I don't post those for people who don't care, I post them for my fellow masochists so they don't miss out on whatever new thing I found that we can all get more angry about :)

Must have missed that, thanks. I'm not entirely up to date on this initiative.

Just to be clear I'm not opposed to WebAuthn, I've just gotten very weary of these big corporations - especially when they are banding together and are all super excited about the same thing as we're seeing here :)

Attestation certificates include detailed information about the device that signed them. Nothing is stopping services from limiting accepted devices to only those approved by the passkey gang (MSFT,AAPL,GOOGL).

Suddenly things that many so readily dismiss as being FUD such as retail Pixel devices' bootloader requiring an internet connection to unlock[1] become much more more relevant.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35852192

One aspect that concerns me even more is the profiling and labeling of individuals.

I have a friend who is - as he puts it himself - "even beyond the [autism] spectrum". He recently showed me how often he's falsely accused on Reddit and Discord of being a bot or of having used ChatGTP due to the way he writes. It happens so much and in such aggressive tones that I'm surprised he's still bothering to engage with others on the internet at all. Very sad to see.

It wouldn't surprise me if this AI would pick up on his strange writing style (hard to describe.. very structured) and decide his reviews or whatever consistently aren't genuine or human and brand them accordingly. He wouldn't even be aware of the fact that his Amazon reviews are being invalidated and pointless to spend any effort on since he doesn't use Firefox himself.

There are only two things Mozilla could do to remedy this kind of situation: have their AI also track and profile people with possible mental/neurodevelopmental disorders, or have a system where people themselves can prove to Mozilla that they're human and can't help writing in that manner due to the way their brain is wired. Neither of which I am sure we can all agree on would acceptable in the slightest.

This is a really messed up development and it's been making my friend really anxious about what other things will be coming in the future.

Which requires a trademark registration for your logomark to be accepted if I understand it correctly.

Since DMARC and SPF exist and are both also supported, all this checkmark does is indicate that the sender has trademarked their logo which, in this context, doesn't say very much at all.

I feel like this solves a problem that didn't exist, at the cost of invoking a false sense of trustworthiness in the sender. Not dissimilar to Twitter's new checkmark system but then for affluent businesses.

What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again.

It will start with Mozilla's new AI[1] that will soon be deciding on whether ecommerce offers and reviews are genuine, displaying accusations for the ones it decides shouldn't be taken into consideration by Firefox users. We all know it'll be only be a matter of time before topics such as inclusivity, vulgarity, and at least all of the others IE's Content Advisor covered are added back into the mix.

[1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/fakespot-joins-mozilla-f...

Relevant recent announcement by Mozilla regarding their acquisition of an e-commerce product/review scoring "AI" service, with the intent to integrate it into the core Firefox browser: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/fakespot-joins-mozilla-f...

Mozilla will be algorithmically profiling you and your actions on covered platforms, and if it ever decides you are a fraud or invalid for some reason, it very conveniently advertise this accusation to all its users by default. Whether you will be able to sell your stuff or have your expressed opinion of a product be appreciated and heard by Firefox users will be in Mozilla's hands.

A fun fact that serves to show what these companies are willing to throw overboard just to gain the smallest of edges, or perhaps simply to display relevance by participating in the latest trends: the original company's business strategy was essentially Mozilla's Manifesto in reverse, and included such things as selling all collected data to all third parties (at least their policies openly admitted to this). The person behind all that is now employed by Mozilla, the privacy proponent.

Not quite the same, but those are also being worked around by everyone and their mother. In many cases with dirty and damaging hack solutions, which only have to be that way due to the fact that no relevant technical documentation is published by the manufacturer.

And then there are plenty of people who will happily download and load a custom bios onto their $2k GPU that they found on some or other foreign-language forum without even the slightest clue as to how it works or what the possible consequences might be.

This will now also start being a thing with non-technical people and their cars.

It is too vague and suggestive towards some sort of active enhancements being performed during your subscription, whilst in reality all they do is flip some "is_castrated" boolean value in a database.

Paying doesn't make the machine perform better than it already could; Not paying makes the on-board software limit the machine to perform worse than what it's actually capable of.

They already posses the capability to perform to the implied specifications with or without that $60/mo.

Interesting thanks for sharing. I just upvoted that comment of yours as well, stalebots are indeed the worst!

Funnily a comment I posted yesterday just passed the 75 points, so it appears that either there is no cap or that it was lifted.

Tangentially related, out of curiosity: Are all or perhaps only specific comments limited to a maximum of 75 points, or is it simply a coincidence that mine have never seemed to get more upvotes beyond that score?

I made no such argument regarding simplicity.

Nevertheless: even if a solution turns out to be too difficult for users to understand no matter how you present it (at which point you might want to rethink whether this apparently fundamentally flawed idea should even be implemented at all), violating your users' agency by taking the reigns and obfuscating the whole thing to them is morally wrong and in simple terms: an arsehole move.

Google pretend-playing "building a more private web" again.

Blocking third party cookies is great, but with these "Third-Party Sets", self-appointed gatekeeper Judge Google (Judge Dread) takes requests from website owners for lists of domains they control to be partially exempted from these third party cookie restrictions.

Instead of making third-party cookies obsolete as is one of the exclaimed goals of the broader initiative, they turned it into an insidious and opaque tool that lets them increase their insight, influence, and control over the web and all its users even further.

This is bad for both advertisers and their prey alike.

Addendum: Getting rid of third-party cookies whilst not breaking Single Sign-On and similar such features could also have been achieved with a user-controlled local browser setting and a new type of permission request popup.

The need for Google to be in control of this is non-existent and the people working there are more than smart enough to understand this. They are playing us all here.

Call me a cynic but I'm convinced that won't be happening anytime before critical mass adoption of these companies' own solutions, and either defeated acceptance of this new norm or abject incomprehension by whomever remains.

"All your base are belong to us"

> We’ve raised over $17 million dollars from a diverse group that includes the founders of Instagram, Stripe, Twitter, Zoom, Figma, and LinkedIn.

https://thebrowser.company/#15

> We may also de-identify or anonymize Personal Data to further our legitimate interests.

https://start.arc.net/privacy-rights-by-region

Closed source, as far as I could tell.

It looks like a really nice product but the combination of these little factoids and their divergence from claims made on the browser's primary marketing website does leave me feeling a little bit uneasy.

Right around the time when Vercel introduced their performance analytics upsell service, they deleted the NextJS documentation on "web vitals" gathering - same thing, but without the service.

Then again when they introduced their new Image component for the longest time it would by default use Vercel's paid image optimisation services, eventually it could be disabled but only with some weird and poorly/confusingly documented custom configuration entry.

There are more instances of similar such questionable actions by the NextJS maintainers. I'd rather have seen them just be open about what drove them to do these things.