16,619 karma · joined May 7, 2022
I care more about the integrity of my personal privacy than I do about the integrity of the "system". The point of the system is to serve me.
> And OP had SIP enabled, but his system still got compromised with a remote exploit.
Nobody said that SIP magically prevents macOS bugs and security vulnerabilities.
But this eliminates all SIP protections, for example, as discussed in the article, preventing Meta Muse from reading your Messages db.
Muse doesn't need Full Disk Access if SIP is disabled.
What Gruber didn't realize is that Apple gives its engineers special internal tools that can bypass the restrictions we on the outside have to suffer.
I'm sure it's also the case that internal development macOS builds are compiled differently than public release builds. They basically have to be for Apple engineers to modify them during development.
That wasn't the the point, though. The point is that asr has special private Apple entitlements, allowing it to do things that other processes can't, but it requires root to run asr, so asr can't be triggered willy-nilly by any user process.
No, you misunderstood what happened: "Chrome inputs only abcdefghijklmnopqrstu (20 characters) as shown below"
1Password generated a password longer than 20 characters. When pasted, Chrome silently truncates the paste to the input maxlength!
Look at the screenshot: The requirement "Between 8 to 20 characters long" has a green checkmark, because the requirement is satisfied.
There are already folder-specific permissions for every app, including non-sandboxed apps: Desktop, Documents, Downloads. FDA is "everything else". The user has to specifically grant each of those permissions via a system dialog.
With sandboxed apps, you grant access to a file outside the sandbox via a system dialog, open or save. But with non-sandboxed apps, if there were separate permissions for each specific folder, there would have to be separate permission dialogs for each of those folders, and then macOS would become even more of a permissions dialog hell than it already is.
Right, the classic use case for FDA is Terminal app, not backups. I don't think backup apps even need FDA, because they use the Apple ASR tool that already has special permissions.
Thus, I'm not sure what more Apple can do here, but I'm definitely afraid of what they're going to do.
On the other hand, I'm not sure people would have read or upvoted this submission if they knew it was merely a "Try These Tips" article. The HN submission title is vague comment-bait.
I moderate my own subreddit, and it's definitely not "angry indignant rage inducing crap". That's the other thing: Reddit is moderated in a way that most other giant platforms are not. Of course the standards of moderation also vary widely among subreddits.
Based on ActivityPub.
This is like Twitter all over again: they attract technical users with openness, supporting RSS and a 3rd party API. Then after they get enough users addicted and locked in, they close the service, killing the open web.
The future of Reddit is clearly continuing enshittification, just like Twitter/X. AI scraping was merely a current convenient excuse. They hate RSS feeds because the user controls what they see, not the force-fed algorithm.
Ironically, Reddit had already been rate-limiting their RSS feeds: https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/2026/6/3.html
I haven't failed to notice. The problem is that people are going off on tangents and talking about other countries in replies to me when I was always intending to talk about the submitted HN article and the US. They mention other countries in replies to me as if it contradicts points that I was making, but it doesn't, because I was never talking about a non-US context.
There was not a preeexisting discussion of other countries. You and others started a discussion of other countries in replies to my preexisting comments about the US, and I was never intending to talk about that, nor do I have much insight into non-US socializing, which is why I've been trying to clarify that my comments are about the US only.
> Someone suggested elsewhere in the thread that you might be autistic.
I'm not and don't appreciate the remote diagnosis from someone who has never met me and knows almost nothing about me.
Stop making personal comments about me. If you want to argue about socializing in the US or in other countries, fine, although I'm already tired of the argument. In any case, though, psychoanalyzing other commenters is unwelcome in HN comments and indeed discouraged by the guidelines. It's out of place and offensive.
You think I'm obtuse, but it's truly incredible that you can convince yourself you're actually helping me by saddling me with a nonexistent disability, based only on a social media argument with a stranger.
This reponse is hypocritical and contradicts your previous comments, talking about the "we were in the neighbourhood" situation, which you repeatedly emphasized was a TV trope.
You call my comment "meaningless" but I would call yours meaingless because you seemingly make it impossible by defintition to have an unplanned meeting if there's a phone involved. If I'm in my car parked in front of your house and call to ask "are you home?" does that magically become a planned rather than unplanned visit?
An example from another thread: "if you’re equidistant between your house and your friends house". A phone call or text while you're out and about does not transform a visit from unplanned into planned. All it does is give a little advanced warning—a few minutes at most—of the unplanned visit. There's obviously a little more courtesy in calling on a mobile phone and saying "I'm in the neighborhood" as opposed to showing up at your door and saying "I was in the neighborhood", but the mobile phone doesn't add planning to the equation.
I agree that mobile phones have a role in the reduction of socializing.
However, I don't agree with the reason you've given, and I have at least two objections:
1. Mobile phones don't actually shut down unplanned socializing. On the contrary, they make it easier to have unplanned socializing, because they allow you to contact another person no matter when or where either of you happen to be.
2. There's no empirical evidence that a significant number of unexpected visits in the past were unwanted. Surely some were, but not nearly enough IMO to explain the dramatic reduction of in-person socializing.
My theory, in contrast, is that the ubiqiutious internet access of smartphones has addicted people to the practically limitless forms of entertainment and attention-grabbing online, and this internet browsing has usurped in-person socializing as a pastime. This change has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to arrange visits. People have stopped dropping by because they don't want to drop by, not because they can't conveniently drop by.
For the same reason, people have also cut down on non-social activities like reading books. They aren't replacing socializing with book reading.
> You dismissed fiction earlier, for no good reason: A widespread trope doesn't arise in a vacuum.
I dismissed fiction because it deliberately exaggerates for effect, e.g., comedic effect. There may be a grain of truth to it, but fiction by definition is not an accurate reflection of reality.
> I struggle to see why you find it hard to understand,
I'm not struggling to understand. I simply disagree with your analysis.
> so I'm leaning towards thinking you're being intentionally obtuse about it at this point.
You can lean whatever way you want, but you're wrong, and you're also wrong about me "forgetting" the rest of the world when the submitted article is explicitly about the United States: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49894515
> It's not clear to me whether you are intentionally obtuse or if you're genuinely struggling to pick up the context here
The submitted HN article is about the US:
"We’re witnessing the death of hosting in America."
The charts in the submitted article are also about Americans exclusively.
So yes, we are in fact talking only about the US, and I am not obtuse or missing the context. I've been aware of the context the entire time.
What did you think we were talking about?
I'm not "writing off the vast majority of the world" or "forgetting" anything. The submitted article just happens to be about the US, not the rest of the world, and the patterns of socializing in other countries may be very different.
And indeed, the subtitle of the HN submitted article is "We’re witnessing the death of hosting in America."
Yes, I'm referring to the US.
> Today it is more widespread, but it used to be highly unusual.
I can't even speak about today, because I haven't had a landline in years. But at least in the US, unlimited local calls were definitely not unusual in the pre-smartphone era.
Interesting. This may be due to the size of Chicago.
I didn't see such varied options, not even in Minneapolis.
> Before they would happen because we had no ways to stop them
Yes, in a sense, I'm missing that point, because I began with the assumption that more socializing was good, and the dramatic reduction of socializing is to be mourned. If your point is "good riddance to dinner parties", I personally wouldn't agree with that.
Of course individual people differ in their preferences for socialization. However, I don't think it's justified to project personal anti-social feelings onto the majority. You might be annoyed by unexpected visitors, but to others it may be a delightful surprise. When you refer to "A lot of those visits", that's your own personal view and doesn't necessarily represent the views of others. Obviously your visitors didn't feel the same way, otherwise they would have stayed home.
How so? At worst, I said "Um".
Regardless of what you believe I've done, do you not acknowledge that you ought to follow the guidelines, and that personal insults are unacceptable, blatantly cross the line? The guidelines don't say that you get to violate them if someone else does. It may be hypocritical of me—though I disagree with that here—but in any case it's not nonsensical.
Where and when did you pay per-minute for local calls? Everywhere I lived and traveled within the US back in the day, so to speak, local calls were always unlimited, even in rural areas.
> I can’t imagine you get invited to many dinner parties.
Please read and respect the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You seem to be completely changing the situation. In this comment, you're talking about wanting to visit someone at home, whereas in your original comment, you're talking about not wanting to visit someone at home: "there’s fewer reasons to even go to someone’s house any more, you can just text them… or not even bother and check their socials to see what impression of a life they’re presenting today."
In other words, the mobile phone is a replacement for a home visit rather than a means for a home visit. (On the other hand, a laptop or desktop works just as well or better for checking social media. Indeed I'm currently typing on a laptop.)
It's true that mobile phones can make it easier than landlines to find out if someone is home, but if that's how people were using mobile phones, then you would expect more home visits, or at least more successful home visits.
> Also if you weren’t the person who paid the phone bill, it was often presented to you as a more parsimonious solution to use your feet rather than the telephone.
I don't understand this point. Long-distance calls were frequently billed per call, but of course walking is not a replacement for those. Local calls were typically unlimited for a fixed monthly rate.