> protections on making sure it's clear clicking that particular element is going to second chance the permission prompt is at least much less likely to get abused.
I guess I really don't understand the abuse they're trying to guard against. The protections are like "the button isn't transparent and there's a 3:1 contrast ratio, because click jacking." Alright, so I will just make the button say 'click to view content' or 'click for free bitcoins' or really anything at all and people will happily press it.
And when they do they'll get the same permission dialog they would have if I had been allowed to make the button invisible anyway.
I understand the use case for the second chancing. I think it's really crazy to make it require this special HTML (!?) element that you can only have up to 3 of on your page at a time (because we all know as soon as you hit 4 of these buttons it means you're up to no good).
If it were me I would have allowed second chancing via JS API, only if initiated by user action (we have that pattern already for events), and with exponential back off between retries.
If they were really dead set on this whole concept of secure enclave essential oils elements, they had a decent idea with the `<permission>` element that they mentioned in the article - but then we decided to throw that out, but don't worry, specific `<camera>` and `<microphone>` elements are coming soon.
It's kind of insane to me that effort was put into all these fuzzy make-your-site-randomly-not-work heuristics and at the end of the day it still pops open the permission dialog anyway. It's like the worst of both worlds
Uughh why do we need this whole new html element and not simply make the getUserMedia API allowed to be called more than once if the initiator is a user click?
So what is the resolution supposed to be? Randomize the results whenever a user searches for a vague product category that is also something that Google provides?
The article is pretty light on detail about what "favoring their own service" actually meant. Just that it appeared above Klarna's when a user searched BNPL?
It all seems vague and hard to cure. The algorithm is typically very good at surfacing the least shitty option, so if the resolution is "well you have to jumble them now" that's strictly worse for me as a consumer.
This, just like blanking out a football stream for a split second to binary search and find IPTV rebroadcasters, is far too good a solution. Suits prefer to make it seem like their job of fighting "misuse" is hard, justify their budget, continued existence of the trust & safety department, face scans, etc.
Anthropic sells some undisclosed and ever-changing number of tokens for $200, the customer uses those tokens. If there's any fraud here, it's that the $200 next month is silently worth fewer tokens than the last.
Yeah I really don't understand the anti-GET-body argument.
"Using GET with a body isn't in the spec, WAFs and webservers that haven't been updated might reject it!"
Ok, QUERY wasn't in the spec when those were written either. What do you expect those appliances to do with a totally unknown verb?
It's a welcome addition but the new method is pure marketing. There's no reason the update couldn't have been to expand GET instead of add support for QUERY.
No mention of a built in camera makes this a total non starter for me. If I'm going all in on an AI helmet it better be able to record front and back so my next of kin can get a payout from whatever pavement princess flattened me in the unprotected bike lane.
Sure maybe this NAS is overpriced compared to building it yourself but those are different target markets.
When it comes to wireless access points you really can't beat $99 for home use. I've never had any reliability issues, never had to even think about my network, rebooting my router, those issues are just completely in the past and the single-pane-of-glass makes networking such a non-burden. I feel confident knowing my network is not running on some piddly proprietary TP-link fork of openWRT running who knows what else.
> hardware that you will never own because it runs proprietary firmware,
I don't really buy these things to install a gameboy emulator on them, they're appliances to solve my problem of "need internet" and they work flawlessly. More power to people who achieve that solution by buying their own SDR PCIe cards and wiring that all up, but I don't have time for that nor does it really matter to me.
> forced to install apps to take full advantage from those devices.
As opposed to busting out an RJ11 cable and configuring them over serial or something? The management platform is part of the value prop, you're clearly not the target audience :)
Thanks for highlighting the "one element cross fades into a totally different one" example. That particular type of animation really makes an app feel ungrounded and unreliable to me, it gives a sense that the UI elements aren't really tied closely to the data and are just barely existing. And somehow I see it all the time across tons of apps.
The improved versions where the elements actually transform into each other, sharing the same visual real estate, is so much better.
> All I’m really getting from this is that I should avoid animations
Wouldn't be the worst takeaway from the article. You should avoid animation for animation's sake in general. Imagine if we animated letters flying up from your phone's keyboard into the text field as you type them for example.
Yeah the difference is that the blur frames are deliberate and purposeful for the overall effect. The animations showcased here are accidental jank that reveal a clobbered together unpolished app.
> Agreed, this can't be worse than what it's replacing.
The mistake is assuming this replaces anything instead of becoming just one more piece of the tracking puzzle.
Even if it did "replace" cookies or whatever, it's strictly worse than "before" because it's giving advertising a front seat in the browser. My browser should be doing precisely nothing to help you attribute your ad impressions or whatever. But now Mozilla et al have to waste their time maintaining and augmenting this opaque piece of mathematical faff.