manigandham

Yes. Mobile and desktop apps have much more data leakage because they can store more data for longer and have much more APIs to use. A mobile app provides 100x more detailed data with more persistence than a website ever could.

This is well understood by the adtech industry and is why so many websites push apps in the first place.

Settings > Passwords > Password Options > AutoFill Passwords + Allow Filling From Chrome

Most apps can use passwords from Chrome just fine, and you can also quickly open the native passwords window when encountering a password field using the key icon.

For TOTP, use apps like Authy which can be installed and used from multiple devices.

Most people (especially here) would find those emails to be spam and never read them. Is that seriously your suggestion?

It’s done for governmental and judicial issues like not working with terrorist organizations. It’s not accounting for bad advertiser history and related behaviors and connections.

The point is that it’s not a resource or scale issue (as you keep arguing), but a profit and incentives issue as I said before.

That makes no sense. It seems you're confused about KYC. It's a screening process that blocks known bad actors (eg: in finance that is anyone convicted of certain crimes, on watchlists, denied by regions or sanctions, etc). Most advertisers would not be affected at all.

By the way, this is already done since Google does check advertiser accounts against various sanctions and watchlists as part of dosing business in every country they operate in.

> "doesn't have any tighter KYC restrictions"

Yes that's the problem.

> "Requiring bank-scale KYC..."

Nobody said that. The KYC part is an analogy to the financial industry to use procedures to screen out bad actors. But it doesn't need the same requirements.

> " they don't have infrastructure to background-vet 4 million customers"

KYC is not difficult. Again, banks and finance companies which are far smaller than Google do this all the time, for all of their customers and anyone involved in transactions. This is 100s of millions of clients.

> "Perhaps this is the right approach."

This approach is far more nuanced than the binary outcome you're interpreting. There are ad and account approvals already. There are different scales requiring different support and sales already. Having more intensive checks as the spending scales is a very simple and effective strategy that can be applied today.

The company doesn't care about the number of customers, it cares about the revenue against potential risk (just like every other every business), and currently the risk is acceptable for these ads and advertisers to continue.

The risk is carefully managed. These malware ads are on the results page and are allowed until enough issues are raised. In other places, like Google's SSP for the rest of the web, there's far more malware because that reputational risk is pushed to the publishers.

Countermeasures aren't needed if adtech just stopped working with known bad actors and recognizable malpractices.

Why would it lock out most advertisers?

To clarify, I mean political in the sense of business politics and procedures, not legal. More importantly, there is no "right" to advertise nor is Google the only advertising system.

The power of advertising (as in buying influence) should absolutely require vetting and approvals. This is already done today, and comes in many layers as scale and budgets increase. The problem is profits that do not incentivize stopping these ads effectively.

Adtech veteran here. That's not how the industry works.

All ads on major DSPs already require approval before they can run. Advertiser accounts too, especially at scale. While there are plenty of technical openings for fraud and malware, the vast majority is from known actors that can be resolved through business practices.

A trillion-dollar megacorporation with hundreds of thousands of employees has more than enough resources to handle this. The reason it doesn't is because of the flow of money and incentives across the vast supply chain from advertisers and agencies to vendors and publishers.

Ad fraud is a political problem, not a technical or resource problem.

You're missing the point.

Instead of a law to stop "lower" and "upper" caste from discriminating against each other (like that comment was saying), the entire concept of caste needs to be purged.

That won't happen if you continue to use those very terms and then say it's (describing) reality. The sooner people stop dealing with it, the sooner it stops being a (real) thing.

It isn't real. That's the point. It's made up arbitrary classification. Continuing to use it by calling people "lower-caste" is how it persists.

You're not describing reality since there is no such thing as a "lower-caste person". Stop thinking, talking, and acting as if there is.

You can't legislate your way out of it, you just stop doing it, including the language.

What is a lower-caste person? Your other comments argue that people are being dismissive yet you're using the very language that furthers caste segregation.

And again, it's all subjective. I suspect most people in the "real world" (whatever that means) do not actually find it fun, hence the vast majority of professional writing in other industries not having any emojis.

Lack of emojis doesn't mean PR driven corporate speak either, and in fact both are on same level of equivocal communication.

> "But if you can be cute and get the same point across, it's usually better to be cute."

Why exactly? The entire point of the article and the many comments here are about how subjective, useless and usually aggravating it is.

Also the incredibly annoying use of emojis everywhere turning every document into a children's book.

What have they created? You might be thinking of Tech Ingredients - https://www.youtube.com/@TechIngredients

They would be knockoffs if they claimed to be exactly the same as the original.

What's illegal about buying modified items?

You're missing the point. Their scale (in number of records and queries) is a better fit for provisioned capacity than pay-as-you-go in the context of billing.

The exact small/large label doesn't matter, nor does the requests-per-second.

Your usage seems to be in the "large" customer category where provisioned capacity is a better deal. Algolia does have volume discounts if you talk to them, but yes the other alternatives might be a better fit.

Why do the number of records and searches have to be similar? The current pricing is simple - you pay per "search unit" which scales in both dimensions.

The vast majority of small/medium customers would rather pay-as-you-go than maintain a fixed cost instance, and it allows Algolia to efficiently pack them into a multitenant architecture instead of wasting resource overhead.

Congrats to the team, it's been interesting to watch the development of Meilisearch (and it's close competitor Typesense). Algolia has really paved the way here but it's nice to see the open-source options with more configurations and better default UX.

There's also many search libraries if you want to embed search more deeply into your app. I have a list of modern search systems and libraries here: https://manigandham.com/post/search-systems-libraries

The problem comes down to how quickly configuration data can be pushed to the edge and modern CDNs like Cloudflare and Fastly respond to changes within seconds, or even milliseconds.

How does DNS give you more control than BGP?

One is an actual routing system that tells routers where to send data, the other is a name translation system with multiple layers of caches outside of your control.

DNS is a layer above as BGP is still used to actually navigate to the listed IP, and any large CDN will own that IP space and announce their own routes anyway.

There are multiple torrent/download services like Put.io that make it much easier and more useful.

Regardless of streaming service subscriptions, nothing beats raw files for high-fidelity playback without buffering and instant replay/seeking.

Online bill pay (initiated on your end) is usually just paper checks and occasionally ACH transfers, both of which take time and are annoying to deal with, so of course they don’t like it.

Visa and Mastercard are payment networks, not banks. They don’t own the debt at all.

That’s much worse than interest rates for the vast majority (that don’t have any assets to put up or can’t afford to actually lose them).

Also known as the Hero's Journey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey

"the common template of stories that involve a hero who goes on an adventure, is victorious in a decisive crisis, and comes home changed or transformed."