I think it's just because supply-chain attacks are not common enough / their attack surfaces not large enough to be worth the dev time... yet...
Sneak in a malicious browser extension that breaks the permissions sandbox, and you have hundreds of thousands to millions of users as an attack surface.
Make a malicious VSCode/IDE extension and maybe you hit some hundreds or thousands of devs, a couple of smaller companies, and probably can get on some infosec blogs...
Operating systems are different though, since their whole purpose is to host _other_ applications.
FWIW, MacOS isn't any better or worse for security than any other desktop OS tbh....
I mean, MacOS just had it's "UAC" rollout not that long ago... and not sure about you, but I've encountered many times where someone had to hang up a Zoom or browser call because they updated the app or OS, and had to re-grant screenshare permissions or something. So, not that different. (Pre-"UAC" versions of MacOS didn't do any sandboxing when it came to user files / device access)
Browser extensions also have a relatively robust permissions-based system.
If they wanted to, one would guess that browser-ish local apps based on stuff like Electron/node-webkit could probably figure out some way to limit extension permissions more granularly.
There's a chance that they might stall you and never actually pay (or chargeback the invoice).
That way they'll get a free link for at least some amount of time, and if done at massive scales correctly, it could bump some site up the search results for long enough.
The article mentions having the OP send a PayPal invoice...
Pretty sure the other side is not gonna pay it unless you follow through (i.e. they could always charge it back and claim you never delivered the invoiced service, heck they might do that even if you put up the link!)
I'd say China doesn't have particularly tight_er_ information control than other places, they're using the same tools everyone else is using (keyword/hashtag bans, algorithmic content demotion, "shadowbans" of responses, and outright content removal etc.)...
It's mainly just that there's more politically motivated manipulation... versus in the west where those tools would be used on things like copyright infringement, pornography, and misinformation etc.
Right to repair just means for those that do want to repair it, they can without any undue burden.
If you don't want to repair it, nobody is forcing you to! Just throw it away like you would have done anyways.
The point of right to repair is that there is a non-zero amount of people who want to repair stuff and it shouldn't cost the people who don't anything extra... It's a "right" not an "obligation"...
> But if you go to a shitty concert, you don't get your money back. If you buy a shitty album, you can't get your money back. And you can't get the band to "make it better" for you.
The difference is whether "shitty" is subjective or actually defective.
Like, if you don't like the music, that's on you, someone else might like it.
And, I've certainly been to concerts / movies / events where there have been "experience-breaking" technical difficulties and they've (partially or fully) refunded the tickets.
The provider could reject further access to them (reads / writes) once the limit is reached. The cost of actually keeping objects as "cold" storage has a natural cap per billing cycle since those are billed based on time.
So, as someone who has lived in regions with pretty severe internet censorship in the past and built circumvention software back in the day, I've always pondered the idea of whether one could build a fax-based thing like this for browsing the web. Kind of as like a "last resort" system.^
Could have a form that you fax in with, like a URL and session info (cookies and stuff), and then it faxes back the page, and you can circle stuff and fax the page back to interact and "click on" things.
Plus, since computers can ingest faxes, you wouldn't need to waste paper printing everything out, and could just do everything digitally. But you still had the option to use paper and a fax machine if you really need to.
^: Yes, I know faxes are unencrypted and phone lines can be tapped. But I've always found the idea intriguing. Plus having some emergency point-to-point communication to bootstrap things like key exchange could still be neat.
I wonder if OCR could be improved by adding a "language model" of sorts...
Like, sure, maybe it's hard to tell apart a "1", "i", or "l" purely visually, but if you knew it was supposed to be code, I'd suspect one could significantly improve the recognition accuracy if the system just worked in the probability of each confusable option given the preceding (and following) text.
PVP and leaderboards attract a different audience than normal gacha players which is why it tends to be rare-ish in gacha games. (Almost none of the popular ones focus on it).
Most of the time, the social aspect of gacha is to show off your "collection" rather than to show off your "skills", so adding PvP and leaderboards doesn't do much for most players.
Instead, gacha games tend to have "social" features that do let you show off your "collection" in some way, like profile cards with character showcases, "supports" mechanisms that let friends and strangers borrow your characters, or sometimes just blatantly a score for your gallery completion %.
Also FWIW, Genshin actually has PvP, it's just that it's only present in the card battle mini-game. And my impression (could be inaccurate though) of that is most players are not particularly "into" that mode.
Very perplexed about this too. The only reason I can come up with is to prevent people from copying the content?
But that doesn't make much sense either TBH. The page's content is not obfuscated, so this does nothing to stop a content scraper script. Plus, even a not particularly technical user can just turn on reading mode and get at the text anyways...
Yeah, classic MTL. It should be closer to "*built-in* (support for) AI" (basically integrations for LLM prompting) and "*multi-purpose* by design" (basically a grab bag of support for modular code, functional and declarative programming etc.)
Not really, it skips over utility based shopping entirely.
Everything in the article (after the bit about utility vs signalling) assumes the thing you're buying is primarily meant to increase social capital (as a gift or a display piece [which may still have utility]) and then explains how to get the most for your money in that case specifically.
The article literally shows two examples of ads for trucks, one advertising utility and one signalling...
The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling. It doesn't imply that is the only reason, just that it's an increasingly _common_ one.
> The Coca-Cola Company sought ways to increase the five cent price, even approaching the U.S. Treasury Department in 1953 to ask that they mint a 7.5 cent coin. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_price_of_Coca-Cola_from_...]