Looks nice! Reminds me of a similar program (a bbs door, really) named ‘yogurt’ by @sedatk — I remember using it to improve my fast-typing around 2002-2003. This brings back memories :)
2. It is possible, and you better believe it. They haven’t updated it, because there is no need for it.
Signal is simply not interested in your messages. It’s also not interested in your metadata, because it’s not an ad platform or a SIGINT front masquerading as a free messaging service.
If all this sounds hard to believe, you should donate.
I have always denied Instagram access to my camera, microphone, photos, and location, on top of disabling background refresh. Sometimes, upon switching to the app, I get this screen: https://i.imgur.com/Sj8Dikg.png
This has always struck me as odd, because it means the app would have started both the camera and microphone if it had permissions, without me clicking the right buttons to get to it.
I'm too lazy right now to see if I can trigger the screen, and whether iOS would show the microphone/camera activity icons, but maybe there's a bug that's actively being exploited by Meta. I don't know how active the microphone stays if it has permissions, but I wouldn't put it past them to send all the data captured by the sensors even if I'm not posting a story. They did it with "status updates" on Facebook back then, when they gathered the data even if I deleted whatever I wrote without posting.
> I'm still waiting for the damn iPhone to be the gaming platform they promised over a decade ago.
They have a different definition of gaming than we do. The games they're interested in are the ones with in-app purchases.
Except the design department, "good enough" is their motto for everything. "iPhone is the most popular gaming device" and "iPhone is the most popular camera" are two technically correct statements that don't sit right with me, but that's just me.
I'm talking about the difference between making money off a good product, and being on a quest to enrich yourself at all costs, even if it's detrimental to virtually everyone on the planet, and the company in the long term.
I thought it was a very good description. The person mentioned is responsible for turning one of the most important pieces of software used by billions, into user-hostile experiences that's better for only a few, including himself, just for profits.
It feels like some people don't imagine these companies to be ready for compliance. As if they don't have all the knobs ready to turn on a per-region/country/state basis as soon as the law changes and it becomes possible to lose even the smallest amount in stock value.
