kuhsaft

For collaborative documentation, there’s probably a bunch of alternatives.

But SharePoint is the linchpin for Microsoft 365. Well technically SharePoint and Exchange. You can’t use any Microsoft 365 products without SharePoint.

OneDrive uses SharePoint. Outlook Groups and Teams Channels create Microsoft 365 Groups. Every Microsoft 365 Group creates a SharePoint site. Microsoft Loop uses Microsoft SharePoint Embedded.

SharePoint is now a “file and document management system suitable for use in any application”.

So, if you want an alternative to SharePoint you would need an alternative to any M365 Product, including Outlook and OneDrive.

Fun Fact: Teams messages are actually stored via Exchange Mailboxes.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/dev/embedded/ov...

I don’t think that was why the Noddy was used. At the time film and projection were available. They could have recorded film and projected onto a sensor for re-broadcast.

The Noddy was used since it was a live broadcast and “allowed the idents to be of no fixed length as the clock symbols could continue for many minutes at a time”.

So, it’s not really because they couldn’t store video. It’s because they needed an indefinite amount of video for the clock idents and couldn’t generate them digitally.

> Smartphones and the internet have given the layperson awesome technology literally in their hands.

The quote is "awesome technological powers", which, I think, is different from having a technological device. There are the data brokers, social media giants, and governments that have the technological power to manipulate the masses.

> The entire election of 2024 was driven by the people specifically questioning those in authority

The quote: "when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority". Are they serving their own agenda or the agenda of others through the media they consume? Are they knowledgable in their questioning?

I think the point is a collapse of the existing system and consolidation of power. And, I think it'll only embolden other megalomaniacs.

Maybe when weapons were more limited in destruction. But, now the government has weaponry supremacy, and I don’t think you would want anybody to have access to artillery, fighter jets, etc.

> It's amazing how condescending some people on here are

You literally started your comment with "Lol news to me", then you used your degree as if it made you more knowledgeable than anyone else here. Take a look in the mirror?

> ... Do tell

I did?

The extra information isn't to condescend. It's for other people that want to know more about the science.

Oh yeah. I'm not saying otherwise. Someone replied "Clear glass blocks about 5% visible light". I guess "clear glass" is pretty subjective. At what level of attenuation would someone consider glass not clear? xD

> Fiber optics also uses _exceptionally_ clear glass.

Clear in certain wavelengths. Depends on the composition of the glass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber#/media/File:Si_Z...

Silica glass behaves differently from ZBLAN (fluorozirconate glass).

Which goes to show how complicated EM interactions with media can be. It's generally easier to just empirically measure attenuation through some medium and use the empirical measurements as a model.

Depends on the frequency of EM. Fiber optic communications use specific frequencies to minimize attenuation in cables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber#Mechanisms_of_at...

Same with communications over coax. Obviously visible light doesn't transmit well over copper, but a spectrum of radio waves do, some better than others.

> Do tell because as far as I'm aware Maxwell's equations don't have an asterisk on them that say "doesn't work below 1 GHz".

Did you really just pull out Maxwell's equations?

EM interacts with matter in different ways. Glass hardly attenuates visible light, but wood does. 2.4 Ghz can pass through walls better than 5Ghz.

There's the concept of permittivity wherein Maxwell's equations are defined in free space with vacuum permittivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity#Permittivi...

To accurately model EM waves, you need more than just Maxwell's equations. You require material equations to model interactions of EM with media.

If you want to get really advanced, whereas Maxwell's equations are classical physics, there's Quantum electrodynamics (QED) which can model interactions of EM and matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

It’s insane to think that an extension with the ability to snoop on all your requests is more privacy oriented than one that can’t.

It’s insane to want extensions to snoop on all your requests in an attempt at more privacy.

The point is that it’s a different permission.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812416

If you are really privacy conscientious, ad blocking extensions should be able to exist without any access to web requests now.

Separate permission for debugging only available for development essentially. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

Otherwise, you can’t really without more invasive permissions.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74813523/chrome-extensio...

It still exists, but now “ad blockers” can’t use the blocking API to record and forward metrics on hits. Ad blockers don’t even need the webRequest and webRequestBlocking permissions anymore.

Now, if an ad blocker has webRequest permissions it’s a red flag.

For example https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concept... uses webRequest to send telemetry back to some remote server.

That uses a different manifest permission.

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/crx-scripting-api#breaking...

> Still a shit poor pathetic excuse to screw over the userscript/grease monkey users.

Tampermonkey still works fine with MV3

> We cannot pander to imagined ever worsening users forever.

The most popular software/hardware will always pander to the most users. That’s why they’re the most popular.

You can’t complain about the most popular option pandering to the most users. Well, you can complain, but you might be in the minority of the users.

> It feels like the things being done in the name of security are really building an immense prison.

I get that, but we are running so much untrusted code on our machines now. Applications that use thousands of dependencies with the hope that someone spots a bad actor.

> That might be an argument for dropping extensions

Those extensions used the same API that ad blockers used, but for malicious purposes.

So, you would support removing that API? Well, that’s what they did for MV3 and implemented an API just for ad blocking.

> To all the engineers working on this stuff, I hope you're happy that your work is essentially destroying the world that you and I grew up in.

That was a world where the user base was much more limited and devices were less capable. Now we have children, grandparents, educated, and uneducated users with access to web connected devices. These devices now contain everything about you. Compromise of a device can destroy someone’s life.

Not only that, but compromise of a device can cause collateral damage to other devices on the same network.

We now have to cater to every user. Not just to the technologically adept. Look at what people believe on social media. The bar is so low to con people into compromising their device.

On the contrary, MV2 used onBeforeRequest which let extensions see what requests you were making. They could then take that data and use it for malicious purposes.

MV3 doesn’t allow extensions to know what requests are being made, so extensions can’t use your data maliciously.

Requests to ads that are blocked are blocked.

I think you’re thinking of Privacy-preserving ad measurement which is an option in Firefox and Safari. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr...

onBeforeRequest was removed because it is a massive spyware and malware vector.

> I do get that this sounds like conspiracy theory.

> … was not a coincidence.

Could it be that it was coincidence? Do you have a solution for reducing extension malware without removing onBeforeRequest?

> The only way this is an improvement if you think the blockers are malicious

Extensions and in turn MV2 blockers can easily be malicious.

https://usa.kaspersky.com/blog/dangerous-chrome-extensions-8...

Look at how many in Kaspersky’s list are advertised as ad blockers. The majority of users aren’t tech savvy like HN.

It looks like it’s a shared quota now with a minimum per extension [1].

Still sucks that the rules are static though. AdGuard devised a method to diff ruleset changes with the built in rules to generate dynamic rules between extension updates. So, I guess it works.

[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concept...

It’s similar, but not the same. Safari lets you dynamically generate rules that are then compiled for privacy and efficiency. The limits were increased to 150000 rules per content blocker due to user demands [1]. And each extension can have multiple content blockers.

MV3 has a measly 30000 static rule limit. These rules are included with the extension and cannot be updated dynamically. And a 5000 dynamic rules limit. [2]

EDIT: Chrome now has a 300000 shared pool for static rules for extensions that go over their 30000 limit. And a 30000 dynamic rule limit [3].

[1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-for-safari-1-11.html

[2] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-mv3-beta.html

[3] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concept...

I’ve been using AdGuard. There are some limitations with MV3, but it’s not noticeable [1]. AdGuard uses dynamic rules for updating rules between extension updates and for custom user rules. There’s the option using their system level AdBlocker too.

[1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-browser-extension-mv3-re...

Nope. Doesn't nag you to use their VPN or anything.

AdGuard it works on every platform and works with MV3 better than uBlock Origin Lite.

https://adguard.com/en/adguard-browser-extension/overview.ht...

https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stan...

I wish they would at least allow VMs on iPadOS. With the release of macOS 15, you can now use iCloud in the guest macOS VM [1].

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/usi...

> It's most likely just disabled rather than being completely different/non-existent.

As evident by the limited Virtual Memory Swap enabled on iPadOS 16, but not iOS.

All Apple devices use the XNU kernel. But, as the parent blog post shows, the kernel configuration, device tree, and drivers are different.

They are basically the same between Apple Silicon Macs and iDevices.

https://khronokernel.com/apple/silicon/2021/02/07/BOOT.html

https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/SW:Boot

I'm not saying that the newer APIs are backwards compatible with the older ones. I'm saying that they're not which is why they are different APIs. WinRT is a bit different since you target a Windows SDK. But, likewise newer SDKs have APIs that are not backwards compatible.

What I am saying is that the older APIs are forwards compatible with newer versions of Windows. On Windows 11, you can still run applications using those old APIs.

On Android and iOS, your old app may break when running on a newer OS version.

Microsoft doesn't have the luxury of changing the behavior of older APIs on newer versions of Windows, so they end up having to make completely new ones.