sambe

If Google enforced that hosts/domains matched, could you not redirect from your own host to the tracking provider (and them back to you)?

In my experience, well in excess of 20% of devs would make such claims and/or behave like this if given free rein, perhaps even a majority. This is especially true if you take "dev" to mean "anyone who commits code". The exact percentage will of course depend on the nature of the organisation and the incentives set by it.

I will give you that eventually they will take a bunch of time on something and have to explain furtively "it's more complicated than you think" but they may not even realise at that point why it's getting harder.

Could not agree more. There has been both a large quality drop and a big political shift to the left (no idea how replies can claim they have become more and more centrist - that was true until a few years ago but it's swung back).

They lost me as a reader sometime in 2017. Thinking about it now, the change likely coincides with this business model.

That would not be the case for biodegradable ones, presumably - and indeed the article mentions Vegware, which I see everywhere now.

What was the coffee cup discussion?

A colleague recently told me that re-usable coffee cups are about single-use plastics. I looked down at my coffee cup and found it to be both recyclable and biodegradable. He told me it was about the lids. The lid was the same.

Without further research, I would be a bit unsure about the cost of making a re-usable cup vs its lifetime vs biodegradable single-use cups. But despite the fact that things have already improved, I'm hearing they will be banned...

Possibly should be labelled "2018" - I believe several courts including the UK High Court and the European Court of Human Rights have found against parts of the Investigatory Powers Act, in addition to ECJ findings in 2016. Practical consequences of that are.. unclear. I'd think the lack of safeguards in the Act is one of the reasons this has become standard practice.

I agree, but naturally I think that’s the natural interpretation :)

Speculating: I think many Rust rewrite projects are criticised under “for the sake of it” when in fact there is a clear decision that Rust is just a better choice in 2019 (i.e. the decision was not political, but the criticism assumed it was). Many of those will nonetheless peter out because forks are hard. Such a result is only a partial judgement on the original decision.

I'm surprised to see you agree strongly. A Rust re-write for the political/ideological reason of "only using Rust" seems not good engineering by definition - it is not an engineering decision.

However, most of the time that someone would rewrite for the sake of using Rust, it would naturally be to get the advertised benefits of the language. If you believe you will have safer, more manageable code in pure Rust, you are making a valid choice.

The fact that efforts will be split is unfortunate, and should factor into such decisions. But that doesn't seem a strong argument on its own - if you believe such a change is for the better then there's no way to avoid breaking some eggs.

Why can’t these emails just come out and say it: “your account was affected”. It’s always implicit.

Also, why rely on users to change their passwords? Is there a security log I can check?

That is intentional - it's a regular column about social media:

"The Interface is a daily column about the intersection of social media and democracy. Subscribe to the newsletter here."

The headline is the leading story and the final paragraph before "Democracy" brings the story to a close.

Does a more modern Rust/LLVM not auto-vectorize this?

You can reset the identifier already. I assume you are not looking to supply a particular value?

The charges were dropped because the warrants could not be served.

It doesn't seem to reflect any misunderstanding at all to me. Did you read the following explanation? For example, reducing ad spend for growth was considered a possibly good answer.

What do you hope Python will do?

Via MacRumors, supposedly 3GB:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12452488

Does anyone know how much RAM this has, or will that information only come to light when it gets opened up?

I've always had the feeling that RAM becomes the limiting factor for long-life of such a device (because newer iOS/apps/websites use more and more of it - once you are healthily into multi-core you don't have to worry so much about CPU/GPU performance). I think 2GB has been around for years in non-Pro models, but 4GB also for years in Pros. Getting 2GB now seems like a step back even for a mid-range model.

I feel like I've been waiting a long time for autoplay blocking - does this keep being pushed back or have I missed a feature cancellation/config setting/extension announcement?

I doubt only because of that. It’s quite easy to end up in an alternate reality where you get $30k/year for doing boring manual work, or indeed anyway sitting behind a screen all day.

That is begging the question (I don't habitually ask them, anyway).

I believe all of the source studies are multi-year at least.

The article says that after data mining a large dataset for correlations, the authors could only explain 0.4% of the variation in well-being by screen time. Is there really that much to worry about?

Content disappears, UI gets worse. Percentage of low-quality "original content" goes up. Market is being fragmented, so after you're done paying for what you didn't want to watch on Netflix, you pay somewhere else for the thing you did want (possibly you used to be able to get it on Netflix). Then the prices go up across the board.

You can't see how this could be annoying? "Do something else" isn't a replacement entertainment service for when people have finished their work and been outside already.

There is a cost to businesses in complying with and implementing regulations, regardless of the size of the business and how good or bad their behaviour has been with respect to the intention of those regulations. You can't deny over-regulation by assuming only the badly-behaving people are burdened by it.

Besides, there is also a cost to me: the never-ending pop-ups and acceptance dialogues, inability to access information in a straightforward manner for those that choose to block, etc.

What is the percentage of users who actively control their privacy as a result of GDPR (and still happily use the website)? What is the percentage of badly -behaving businesses who will be prosecuted?

Some people don't have root access.

I wonder if he was told, repeatedly, "if you don't like it, leave". My experience has been that companies who don't want to change say this to their best employees, whilst dragging along their worst ones indefinitely. The best eventually follow the advice.

Is there an email notifying all users of the incident and a separate email notifying those affected, or just one?

Many companies seem to use intentionally vague wording to suggest you might not have to worry.

How does the process of getting the certificate installed work? Does the user manually accept the installation at any point? Or is part of the blame on Microsoft for allowing this?

Isn’t that exactly what he’s doing? It says the issue has been settled amicably and they’re looking elsewhere.

Also, how do you define “welcome”? A single lawsuit doesn’t mean much about overall endorsement.

Because they don't want to see the ads being discussed here?

The parent's key point is going cross-platform to take market share from WhatsApp, not the exact funding model.

I think the journalism results from this:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

If so, it appears to be neither original research nor a systematic review. I think it's worth being sceptical (especially given the wording of the Guardian article).

If you live in a developed country where people aren't repeatedly killing themselves through acute exposure the relevant section of the link above appears to be:

"The US EPA concluded in 2016 that the existing epidemiologic literature provided “sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required to cause acetylcholinesterase inhibition” [11]. Such chronic, low-level exposures are often overlooked or dismissed as benign because neither the pregnant woman nor the fetus shows clinically visible signs or symptoms. Furthermore, the developmental deficits do not manifest until months or years later. Indeed, the scientific consensus is that AChE inhibition is uninformative with regard to neurodevelopmental effects in children and that the toxic effects from chronic, low-level exposure occur at concentrations too low to inhibit cholinesterase [1,9]. The evidence thus indicates that OP pesticides can interfere with brain development at levels previously thought to be safe or inconsequential."

The following paragraphs rely on this conclusion or speculate. I think it's worth reviewing those references, which I have not yet done. They are:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-... https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx266 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2013.09.003