throwGuardian

If silicon/chip IP becomes free, and the only major cost to tape-out is an integration team, and Fab related stuff, China, not silicon valley, is the real winner

Top SEO strategy advice sites often carry this kind of advice: https://moz.com/blog/how-google-adwords-ppc-affects-organic-...

Start and maintain a $100/month adwords account, and magically, one's domain gets free SEO (moving up in ancillary search results) --> every S.E.O advice on the internet openly states this.

No there isn't, despite repeated high profile hacks.

I've spoken to many in security, selling E2E enablement for the enterprise, and even among CIOs, there is no urgency to implement this. You can imagine the indifference among the less tech savvy

The FCC will likely say: "Choose between high speed internet in rural areas, and astronomer inconvenience"

Aren't these the same VCs espousing China style 9:9:6 work hours [1], promoting myths of 10x-ers who only sleep once a week, and demand from their portfolio every last breath of effort, or esle ...

Please, apply some of that 9:9:6 to your VC workflow, don't sleep and definitely try to be a 10-X investor. And definitely turn up the paranoia on FOMO - not because it yields dividends, but because every VC peaches it, so practice what you ...

Those Billions won't earn themselves

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system

> Gitlab is still the team that ...

I just don't get why the internet neither forgets nor forgives. A startup in it's early days makes mistakes, the only real mistake Gitlab made was be fully transparent about theirs.

You vouch for CF (and no beef against them), but you know nothing of their internal privacy or reliability pitfalls. That warm fuzzy feeling you have about CF is a result of their carefully groomed PR coupled with 0% opacity on internals. Again, not saying CF has any issues, but if they did, you wouldn't know

From a purely economic viewpoint, fabs these days have such high levels of automation that locating them in Asia doesn't carry the cost benefits it used to

Isn't this still wrapped in a container. I would assume a commercial deployment would need this isolation - after all chrome allows toggling feature flags, which could bleed across instances if not containerized.

The big benefit to this approach is the availability of WebApis in a Faas environment.

Missing in iOS Safari:

1. Binary WebRtc data channel messages

2. Browser notifications that a PWA can use

3. Web App storage beyond 50MB, and guarantee that the OS won't whimsically delete storage, despite being below 50 MB

4. You've already cited Web App Manifest

There's probably a ton of other W3C standards not in compliance, but the above list is pretty damning.

Is the main API chrome apps offered (that's now missing) Nacl/Pnacl?

Also, please omit webapps on iOS Safari as an alternative. Apple gives no explanations on why it cripples Safari's W3C compatibility, especially features around PWA, but everyone knows it's to drive developers, users and hence revenue/profits to the app store.

Someone needs to sue Apple for this, and the truth will be revealed when the case enters discovery mode, when Apple internal communications on this are laid bare

The best we can do as society is to offer equal opportunity at success. Success is multifold: physical, mental and economic health jump to mind.

Beyond opportunity equalized, an equitable society should bestow success proportional to the ambitious, persistent hard-working individuals. That might be imperfect, as a few statistical outliers who tend to have outsized innate advantages (Einstein, Ramanujam & Usain Bolt for instance) are likely to be more successful, but that's the most equitable design possible, within the bounds of reality, including evolution - where the fitter tend to survive better

Apple has a track record of only punching down, never up. In China, these histrionics would be brusquely ignored with threats of a sales ban and fines, which is why Apple promptly handed over iCloud-China operations to a government owned/approved cloud.

In this case, Barr has a better chance of Apple complying, by simply routing the request through China.

The presence of "View Source", or extensions, or the ability to modify js is not evidence backing "All web apps need/were-meant to be open source".

Just to be clear, you can pick any x86 binary and disassemble it to x86 assembly, and if you know your way around gdb, single step and view registers,etc. This is not evidence of "all programs were meant to be open source, else we'd not have disassemblers and debuggers"

And lastly, how you choose to enable/disable js is of zero relevance to arguments for/against open sourcing web apps.

> Because the code is being executed on my machine, with my data, using my online identity.

You chose to execute someone else's code by visiting their website. The mere act of voluntarily executing someone else's code doesn't entitle you to it's source. Feel free to not visit the site, and looking at the top Alexa sites, your insistence of code audit-ability would leave you with very few viable, high quality choices.

> general understanding for the web platform was that code....

Untrue. It just so happened that the early web was a collection of static documents, and js was a hack to add some trivial functionality. Only recently has the web turned into a full fledged app development platform.

> fundamental change to the way the web works ....

Again, this is an anachronistic view of the web. We're well past a collection of static documents

> the same benefits will be given to malware ...

Goes without saying that technology can and will be used for good and bad. While one can legislate to discourage the bad, simply demanding code to be open sourced, as an argument for deterrence is unture, inaccurate and hampers innovation.

In summary: No one is entitled to someone else's web app code.

Why should someone be forced to make their IP "open" just because someone else on the internet feels entitled to read and potentially copy/modify/... their code?

How about illegal drugs and human trafficking, if you're going down the rabbit hole of false equivalency?

Others feel differently, as podcasting is a multi billion dollar industry

Yes indeed. And the lecturer should ask those with special pronoun preferences to address him as the Bible addresses the Lord - deferential and in plural. Because everything in language is made up

In other Amazon press releases:

1. Disabling Amazon's deep integration into Ubuntu's desktop search, is a security risk.

2. Android tablets that are not Amazon Fire are security risks

3. The reall MongoDb, if self hosted or hosted by Mongo/Atlas is a security risk, now that AWS provides it's own managed version

4. Using the "one-click" patented workflow on any other site than Amazon, is a security risk

> then tech monetized them

I don't know what they intended to convey - that anyone in tech==evil.

Imagine the headline that puts journalism through a similar purity test: "then the journalists monetized them". They'd have you banned on social media

I don't know the disconnect between HN and the real world. Auth0,Okta, AWS Cognito, ... are all making good money, so clearly real costumers are paying them real money.

I'd recommend using something like Fireabase as the front end, that issues JWTs etc., but the actual user database to still yours. Firebase calls this custom-auth. That way, you benefit from their client libraries in multiple languages (Js, Swift, Kotlin, ...), and also from the reliability and security of their server side, but since the actual DB is yours, you have the option of moving to another provider, like Cognito, if need be

The entire premise of our Justice/legal system is not to nail someone at all costs, but to do it within the bounds of the law. More is obviously good for the state, but not the legal, ethical, moral way to go.

I have no problems with search and seizure that is backed by irrefutable "probable cause". But one year?!! Why not his entire life? The courts are stretching common sense definitions of "cause", and simply fishing for anything to nail him

As for Google, while I agree with you, the reality is that their business model relies on personal data, and we're none the wiser continuing to use them despite this knowledge. How many, even within the HN community, will bother transitioning away from Google, after reading this?

Because their business model relies on your personal data?

The question is not why Google has your data, it's why you chose to continue using Google despite the awareness of such a scenario happening. As someone else commented, this article should be circulated far and wide, and people need to be educated on privacy friendly alternatives like ProtonMail.

Lastly, the courts and law enforcement are a problem if they knowingly overreach their limits. Protections against unlawful search and seizure and right to privacy are guaranteed by the Constitution

I believe Smollette staged this, but the state should not be allowed to simply get a year's worth of his personal data without cause. This tantamounts to unlawful search and seizure and a gross violation of his right to privacy, both guaranteed by the Constitution.

As much as I disapprove of Smolette, we cannot let the state overstep it's boundaries and jurisdiction. They'll have to prove it while being compliant with the Constitution

Have you considered the inverse, to allow by default, and disallow flagged domains?

There's no whataboutism here - it's 3 American (foreign) companies petitioning a democratically elected local government for a free pass. Sorry, no quarter. Especially for technocratic elitist valley companies fully aware of their ability to control & shape the zeitgeist, with a history of having to defend their blatantly partisan practices in congressional hearings [1][2][3][4]. These companies are falling over themselves in an effort to cut off political advertising on their platforms, just in time for the 2020 elections, sensing an opposition faction victory[5][6], while simultaneously singing praises of the Obama campaign's 2008/2012 actions of the exact same kind [7].

Your circular references to transparency reports from the very same companies petitioning for a pass isn't convincing. CNN literally settled in court, not 8 hours ago for defamation against kids [8], whose politics they despise, despite no wrongdoing on part of the kids. These companies aren't neutral third parties, nor are they benign. They have their agendas - shaped by the powerful at their helm, who quite literally cried because an opposition party came to power [9]

As for Indian TV's criticism of the ruling party, I'm told that there is a healthy and powerful political opposition party, replete with a sympathetic media faction that openly takes their side (as are channels aligned with the ruling party), and Twitter seems to be teeming with criticisms of the establishment. India's press is generally considered free, and freedom of expression rankings are also generally high, apart from the hate-speech laws implemented by the previous administration?

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX6LlEcJ4nw

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzF7nBmwPso

[3]: https://youtu.be/DXyU0LOqKPM?t=5111

[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik_kzn3etsE

[5]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/30/twitter-bans-political-ads-a...

[6]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

[7]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...

[8]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/07/nick-s...

[9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73eW4qjZOQw

Three American companies don't want to operate within the bounds of Indian law? Can you imagine 3 Russian companies not wanting to follow U.S. law, and demanding legal indemnification for their actions, in a letter to Congress.

It's not a stretch to understand that Indians don't want foreign interference in their politics, and public discourse