Thank you for taking this stance. It is the mature, intellectual, and virtuous one, and with it you are on civilization’s side.
The US is currently in a very bad place politically. It’s visible not just in politicians, but in everybody’s minds, all the time. A person who believes they’re fighting for their life obsesses over “us vs them”, and forgets their every principle and even most reasoning, until the fight is over. When we spit on your principles, please know that they are our principles, too, we just are not currently well enough to remember it.
To be fair, where this applies is specific countries outside the US, not just outside tech. Very few Americans own a smartphone and not a computer, and they are mostly poor and not in the market for an ultra-luxury phone. You’re describing affluent counties that became so recently, like China, South Korea, and Japan, and indeed that’s where foldables are currently doing well.
Huh, yeah, I’m not seeing it there either. The macOS app is what I checked previously. iOS-only users might be able to see it at 1password.com. Weird inconsistency.
I think it’s basically recalcitrance. Same as they suddenly turn into the world’s worst devs every time they have to make software for Windows. Apple hates mouses, but many people won’t consider not using one, so they reluctantly make an expensive, pretty, and absolutely terrible mouse to get you over the hump of the macOS switch then keep pushing you along to where they really want you: the giant touchpad, where they do have a moat, and which trains you for the rest of their ecosystem. They even sneak half of that touchpad into the mouse itself, and half of the mouse out, so the transition is oh so easy.
It doesn’t, it opens Apple Music. Apple has a longstanding problem with giving their own apps privileged roles that they don’t expose to competitors. What concessions exist in browsers, maps, and music player are all the result of being forced into it by various lawsuits. Let’s not play games about what’s going on here.
This should be at the top. It pisses people off because we reflexively think “I’m not a weak-willed procrastinator” or “I’m no addict” or “it’s not that simple”, but it is the truth, and the way to fix it, and harder than it sounds. We get frustrated looking for a dopamine hit elsewhere so we get it from a source we know. Running away from that source isn’t enough to end up running towards the behavior we want, there are a million different undesirable ways to get the hit.
The first amendment is indeed concerned only with the US government’s interaction with the matter, as is appropriate, but that does not imply it’s without other limitation. Your list is very broad and covers a wide range of common sense limitations—like, say, that you don’t want somebody in your vehicle harassing you.
Anyway, airlines are hard because the basic problem is they’re public necessity still halfway regarded as private business. It’s also an unnatural situation that many people be forced to share such little space in “public”, and we’d likely have a different constitution were it always the case.
I don’t think this one will be addressed by principle from on high.
I agree in theory, but this is so extremely far from the US political and social system that I think no nation has ever changed so much without being overthrown. So unless you’re talking about plans for a post-US world, this idea will always be theoretical and not how “the world” works.
> To not be indistinguishable from "strictly necessary" there would have to be a case where the "functional cookie" actually required consent, right?
The case is when you don’t use that feature.
> how would you solicit that consent other than some kind of cookie banner?
Using the feature that requires the cookie is considered consent, same as using the website is considered consent to set cookies actually necessary for the entire website to function. For example, if you click “save settings”, that’s consent to save those settings, there’s no need for a “but am I allowed to save settings?” popup.
You might be tempted to dive into the potential grey area here, and sure, one exists, but (a) that’s why the laws go into 1,000 times more detail than this HN comment, (b) most of it’s not in the grey area, and (c) even in the worst case, making 100% sure is as easy as a checkbox before the button that activates the feature, there’s never a requirement for a blanket “can we do whatever we want” before even displaying the homepage.
> It refers to statistics, but sometimes you do want that, e.g. so the site can tell you how long it took you to do something compared to the average user, or provide those analytics to you. And the fact that this is ambiguous is an obvious problem -- if you get access to the data they collect is that "analytics" or "functional"?
The GDPR calls it “statistics”, but in this context defines the word to mean analytics, not statistics shown to users. If it’s shown to users then it’s either strictly necessary or functional.
> In the face of an ambiguity, most corporate bureaucrats are going to take the risk-averse option, which is to ask for consent in case it turns out to be adjudicated as required ex post facto. The result is quite predictable. If you pass a poorly drafted law, businesses have a general preference for doing something stupid/wasteful/annoying over something that could get them sued or fined.
Businesses are generally risk averse, yes, but don’t mistake knowing a force at play for knowing them all. The “cookie consent banner” was invented and evangelized not by the laws they’re commonly believed to have sprung from but by the IAB, an ad industry consortium counting Google, Facebook, and many others as members. The same organization that organized efforts to prevent third party cookie blocking, and that tried to block the GDPR entirely. The banner norms they created did not even comply with the law until changes a few years ago, the EU just took its sweet time on enforcement.
The average small business, of course, is not in on some grand scheme, but this is where your risk aversion comes in: if all the big players are doing something, and everybody around you is doing it, and you Google it and the first 20 results all say to do it, then the risk averse move is of course to just do it and move on. After all, trusting your own judgement is scary, what if you get sued or fined?
Strictly necessary cookies don’t require explicit consent, and generally can’t be rejected. Functional cookies don’t require additional explicit consent if you actually use that function. “Performance” actually refers to analytics, probably rebranded because users did not want it. Making you think they had to ask for the reasonable cookies, too, is the whole trick being pulled here.
This is already what LibreWolf does for most of its fingerprinting protection, including resolution, which you call out. It already works, LibreWolf is the only browser besides Tor I’ve found that actually defeated fingerprinters in some of my testing. Is there something that’s currently randomized that you think should be binned or homogenous?
This is misinformation stemming from disinformation propagated by organized industry retaliation to the law. Cookie banners are not and never have been required by law, they are intentional harassment designed to make users oppose laws that actually just say “you may not track users without their consent”. A good faith implementation would be simply nothing, because no explicit consent is required when you’re actually using cookies for honest purposes.
Genuinely, I’d recommend you spend a day manually verifying every AI answer you otherwise would have just trusted. I suspect what you’ll find is actually that you cannot bring yourself to do it. I’ve found myself trusting AI answers sometimes, despite knowing they’re usually false, and after some introspection I realized my subconscious was acting on three factors: I wouldn’t actually be harmed by being wrong about the thing, I wanted to feel like I knew it, and I didn’t want to spend any time on it. Getting a real answer could only work against those goals: I didn’t actually need it, it’d likely be less certain, and it’d certainly take a lot longer. In other words, I was fooling myself.
This is going to be unpopular here, but life became easier when I quit trying to write semantic HTML. It’s just poorly designed, I’m sorry. Every time I’ve reached for a <dl> I’ve eventually regretted it because I wanted multiple levels of wrappers, or a divider between sections, or an icon, or a heading spanning multiple key-value pairs, etc. They make this stuff with some flexibility but nowhere near enough to actually cover the generalized concept it purports to. I still use the corresponding elements when there are observable benefits, of course, like <button>, <h1>, etc, but when all it’s going to do is not quite fit the data model and force me to override everything, it’s just not a practical choice.
It shouldn’t be so controversial to say that if 99% of usage routes around your API, it’s probably the API’s fault.
Every single macOS update the top comments are about giving it six months to stabilize, but when a program’s biggest ever rewrite involves a lot of AI, the top comment is calling you irrational if you don’t YOLO it, and probably a jerk, too.
The known/unknown question is not separate in the real world, computing avoids it by asking binary questions only when they’re answerable. Considered generally, though, if I ask a true/false question then read your answer from a single bit, it may be the case that there is no possible way for you to not lie to me.
It’s phones, mainly. People do also have multiple other devices, yes. For me another big pro is having a realtime offsite backup and being able to survive simultaneous loss of all my devices, which is plausible in correlated scenarios like a burglary, fire, mugging, car crash, etc, but I don’t know how much others think of that one.
The people I know who use KeePass live like they’re disabled. You ask them to sign up for something and they need to schedule a half hour for it two weeks out. Ask them to use a website and they need to wait until they’re home because their biweekly manual data transfer was put off because of whatever. And if they ever drop their phone, it’s this totally unforeseeable panic they’re still recovering from two months later. I’m far from convinced it must be like this, but I’m also far from convinced that most KeePass people—or people using any other strategy—have really thought this through.
Down for me too, in the Philippines. Maybe it’s not down in the US. I found out when I was using DuckDuckGo just fine while my friend thought the internet was down, that was kind of fun.
Give me the ability to choose what I trust. “You can either trust Apple and nobody else, even yourself, or you can trust literally everybody” is obviously not a good faith implementation of this. Apple excels at steering the narrative with false conflation and false dichotomy, I’d also remind you of the came-and-went secure boot debate, which Apple successfully steered into Apple owns the encryption keys vs no encryption, and people just kind of forgot to ask, wait, why can’t I have the keys to my device?
The US is currently in a very bad place politically. It’s visible not just in politicians, but in everybody’s minds, all the time. A person who believes they’re fighting for their life obsesses over “us vs them”, and forgets their every principle and even most reasoning, until the fight is over. When we spit on your principles, please know that they are our principles, too, we just are not currently well enough to remember it.