ssklash

I'm torn on this. Personally, I feel like this is totally unnecessary, and reminds me of Mozilla doing all sorts of random stuff and ignoring their core competency of browsers. But on the other hand, this seems like an attempt to make Proton Mail more competitive with Gmail, reduce feature disparity, and encourage adoption, which is great!

A recent Supreme Court ruling allows pretty much exactly this...

The most significant feature of uBlockOrigin, aside from being open source, is the trust that gorhill has earned over the years. He could have been acquired and probably made millions, but he hasn't, because he knows how important what he does has become. There's no replacing that with some closed-source, fly-by-night, probable money grab like this.

Are any of these unfortunate private sector proprietors the sole bulwark against their clients ending up in jail or prison, and always up against better-funded opponents?

You're comparing apples and something far, far different than oranges.

This is the true reason for the push back to in-office work, and gets far too little discussion.

I like to think I'm pretty aware of corporate surveillance practices, but this article really opened my eyes to some of the most devious practices.

The price fixing aspect was especially worrying. It's been well publicized that rents only seem to go up and there are housing crises all over the place, but I assumed it was more due to the usual supply and demand, corporations buying property and raising rents, etc. But I had no idea it was explicit price collusion through 3rd party intermediates, who only exist to enable a token attempt to prevent anti-trust action against them.

Sort of like pre-historic Sea Monkeys. I think that would be super cool to be able to grow at home.

This just seems like an ad...

Why anyone trusts Altman or OpenAI with something as societally consequential as AI is beyond me.

I think you understand the situation perfectly. I'm similarly at a loss to explain why anyone thinks it was ever a good idea to privatise, unless you're one of the few directly profiting from the situation.

I'm not sure how qualified the CEO of McDonald's is to opine on low-income consumers...

Super cool to see MZ initials, which are for Mark Zbikowski. They are still to this day at the beginning of every Windows executable/PE file.

I disagree that there is a problem to be solved here. If you do not like the reality of digital media and the ability for media to be copied indefinitely, find a different business model, instead of trying to get your preferred restrictions placed on everyone.

The MPAA/RIAA spend millions of lobbying dollars on trying to preserve their business model, to the point where non-US countries are required to follow their self-interested, business-model-preserving rules or be excluded from international trade deals.

If physical booksellers did the same thing, they would be ridiculed into silence by the sheer absurdity. But because it's opaque technical measures, backed by mega-corps, it gets a pass.

How many security teams have you been on? Definitely ones with less work than I've been on...

I agree it's a threat that is not exactly easy to pull off. But my main issue with is is represents an attack vector that you can do exactly nothing to defend against yourself. If you use other forms of MFA, you are at least in charge. Sure you can lose your TOTP seed or something, but you have agency in how it is stored. SMS forces you to rely on companies that have log histories of failing to protect your phone number.

This is a good example of why SMS 2-factor is far less secure than TOTP or other methods. You do what everyone tells you, add 2-factor to your account, and then some rando at the local T-Mobile store enables SIM swapping for peanuts, and your whole digital life goes up in smoke.

Of course it does. Google is a personal information farming company, who uses that information to help sell targeted advertisements. They are not an email company, or a maps company, or a search engine, or a phone OS maker. The sooner more people recognize this, and the ramifications of it, the better off we'll all be.

Shouldn't the goal be to work as little as possible? Infinite growth in a finite world just makes us all work harder than necessary, and instead of using productivity and efficiency gains to benefit people/workers, they just go to pad some company's stock price.

I don't think we need to call in experts to decide if we need to save swastika graffiti and other hate speech.

http://neverssl.com/ is my go-to for this.

> Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users.

What a line...

This is effectively a person-in-the-middle attack by Google. I'm sure they say they would never abuse this power, but what I consider abuse is what they consider their core business model. Not to mention what a secret court order could force them to do without ever disclosing.

There you go again, shoehorning in your carefully constructed talking points, without actually addressing any of the topics of the conversation.

It's obvious what you're doing. You probably think you're being subtle, but you're not.

The discussion is not about what % of people know about this (well-documented if you simply do a google search) conspiracy theory, nor is it about criticizing Israel.

The point is about Elon Musk agreeing with a known white supremacist conspiracy theory.

It's a white supremacist conspiracy theory called the great replacement. He's implying that the Jews are responsible for trying to bring in immigrants in order to dilute and destroy "the white race". He's also using somewhat oblique language in order to appeal to the right people who understand this crap, like Elon apparently.

Seems the free market is doing it's job, but I assume Musk will of course see it differently and start suing right, left, and center.

> But it gets worse. The Supremes' code also omit key definitions found in the codes that bind the lower courts. The most important definition to be cut is for "political organization," which the lower courts define expansively as both parties and "entit[ies] whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties." That definition captures "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups" – the whole panoply of organizations whom federal judges must maintain an arm's length distance from in order to preserve their objectivity. Federal judges may not lead, speak at or donate to these organizations.

By omitting this definition, the Supremes open the door to involvement with precisely the kinds of PACs, thinktanks and other influence organizations funded by the billionaires who have benefited so handsomely from the judges' rulings.

What's more, the Supremes carve out an explicit exemption for speaking to "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups," and to serving as a director, trustee or officer of "a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds."

They have a handful of Celtic-inspired songs, and tons of blues and blues-rock based ones. If you listen to them only expecting to hear the origins of metal, you're going to be disappointed. If you have an understanding of how heavy music was at the time, then you'll understand why they were considered so heavy.

Light and shade, as Jimmy Page called it, and very intentionally cultivated in their music.

This was my favorite part, the banality of it. The music they made was so transcendent and impactful, it feels as if it must have been made differently by some super-human geniuses. But all they really did was just kinda screw around until something they liked came out, and then they built on it.

I'll never be a Beatle, but it does feel validating that I can at least attempt to write music in exactly the same way they did, even if the results won't be quite as good.