bilkow

429 karmajoined 10 yıl önce

comments

3 gün öncediscuss

Ah you're right! You were actually very clear by saying Android 9 or below, but I misinterpreted while multitasking here, sorry for that.

> If you're arguing that it is Google who is dropping support/making people have insecure browsers, we're in agreement. As with Safari (or at least those at Apple who control/fund Safari), the Android team is very anti-Web/Chrome. Lots has been written about all of that at https://infrequently.org.

Oh, haven't seen that blog before. Incredible resource, thanks! And yeah, Google, Apple, and also a situation with vendors (e.g. Qualcomm, due to drivers) that makes it so miserable. Not only due to the way they favor their stores, but also indirectly due to how hard they make to have updated or custom OSes for older devices. I believe it's a consequence of the amount of control they exert, Apple by plainly not allowing bootloader unlocking and Google by gatekeeping essential APIs (especially Play Integrity) on "secure" (read: controlled by Google) OSes.

It's a bit insane that we live in two completely different realities on desktop vs mobile, where it's easy to install a current OS and browser in 15+ year old computers but can't even have an up-to-date browser on an 8 year old device, much less and up-to-date OS.

4 gün öncediscuss

There seem to be updated stats here: https://composables.com/android-distribution-chart

Which seems to indicate about 4.8% are below Android 9.

But also, Firefox for Android still supports Android 8, of which there are 1.7% below.

There's a discussion to be made here about who is dropping support for these users, is it Google (and especially Apple, who doesn't allow other browsers on iOS) or the site owner? Especially given how insecure it is to use outdated browsers.

10 gün öncediscuss

Note that the snack price was increased "from 12 yen ($0.08) to 15 yen ($0.10)". That's a 25% increase.

17 gün öncediscuss

Sorry, I am a bit confused about the caching delay, which seems to suggest you can switch kernels without rebooting? That's not what the wiki suggests[0], and what even happens to running programs?

Or do you mean just changing the "default" boot to a different kernel, which in other distros would require changing the boot loader config?

[0] https://nixos.wiki/wiki/Linux_kernel

17 gün öncediscuss

That is true, it is harder, although AFAIK people do sell all kinds of illegal things there.

18 gün öncediscuss

If they have access to the "dark web" they can already do anything that requires age verification there. In the same way you expect that the rule to "not sell UUIDs" wouldn't be respected there, I wouldn't expect other age-verification rules to be respected, no matter the verification method.

27 gün öncediscuss

Have you checked the install date? I'm not sure which are the compromised version numbers, but if they were installed before June 10 you're probably safe. (I think libgdata 0.18.1-5 used to be on the main repos in February, and has recently been downgraded to AUR, so you may be fine).

Only packages from AUR have been compromised, meaning a normal update `pacman -Syu` won't install them, they'll only be installed by `makepkg` or AUR helpers (such as `paru`, which asks you to review the PKGBUILD diff).

Also, if you had installed a compromised version, uninstalling the packages is not enough, you'd probably need to reinstall your system and rotate all credentials. More info here and on the linked blog: https://discourse.ifin.network/t/400-aur-packages-compromise...

2 ay öncediscuss

> I mean we got relativity because of a minor discord with newtonian Laws. (the orbit of Mercury).

I don't think that's true. One of Einstein's test for General Relativity, using Mercury's orbit, came around 10 years later after special relativity was proposed, which is understood to be motivated by both Maxwell's equations and experimental results suggesting that the speed of light (electromagnetic waves) not depending on the frame of reference. General relativity (explaining gravity) seem to have been motivated by Newton's gravity not playing well with Special relativity (with mass being relative and all).

I understand the frustration with Dark Matter, but my understanding is that Dark Matter is a guess that is known to be incomplete. Scientists are shooting everywhere to try to explain the discrepancy in gravitational effects and some form of undetected matter is currently the best hypothesis (but not the only one). You say that "we accept 90% observation disaccordance", but the source of its effect is being searched for.

See:

- https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/622/what-was-einstei...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theor...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Edit: formatting, updated links

3 ay öncediscuss

This is how I'd do it:

    jj new branch1 branch2 branch3

This creates an empty commit that merges all 3 branches, you can think of this as your staging area.

When you want to move specific changes to an existing commit, let's say a commit with an ID that starts with `zyx` (all jj commands highlights the starting characters that make the commit / change unambiguous):

    jj squash -i --to zyx

Then select your changes in the TUI. `-i` stands for interactive.

If you want to move changes to a new commit on one of the branches:

    jj split -i -A branch1

Then select the changes you want moved. `-A` is the same as `--insert-after`, it inserts the commit between that commit and any children (including the merge commit you're on).

There's one thing that's a bit annoying, the commit is there but the head of the branch hasn't been moved, you have to move it manually (I used + to get the child to be clearer, but I usually just type the first characters of the new change id):

    jj bookmark move branch1 --to branch1+

3 ay öncediscuss

I'm curious on the source for these "facts".

- You state that PPA is enabled by default, but it was an experimental feature that was never activated and later removed: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr...

- You state that Sponsored “Privacy-Focused Direct Results” were added to address bar, but 1. it's direct results in general, with some being sponsored and 2. it hasn't been released: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/better-search-suggestion.... The pref defaults to false in current stable.

- Yes, Anonym is an ad metrics firm, but you missed that it's focused on privacy. I am unsure whether they are actually able to achieve privacy or if it's just privacy-washing, but that's their stated goal. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/anonym/

- Privacy FAQ and TOS changes are true, but they rolled them back after backlash: (updated) https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/tech/mozilla-revises-fire... , (original) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-...

- Privacy Notice update is true: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/update/dec2025...

4 ay öncediscuss

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make, I don't see anywhere in the post nor the title claiming the purpose changed and the title is directly related to the content. In fact, it seems like you are just agreeing with the post.

I think people can get frustrated at CI when it fails, so they're explaining that that's the whole purpose of it and why it's is a actually good thing.

I would personally actually frame it slightly different than the author. Non-flaky CI errors: your code failed CI. Flaky CI errors: CI failed. Just to be clear, that's more precise but would never catch on because people would simplify "your code failed CI" to "CI failed" over time, but I don't thing that changes it from being an interesting way to frame.

5 ay öncediscuss

Even if the false-positive rate is very small (e.g. 0.01%), you probably won't be affected, but more than a hundred thousand of websites would be and that would still be an issue. I have no idea how big is the false-positive rate.

There are many of reports of the same happening to other sites, some of the top ones (you can find many more by searching HN for "google safe browsing"):

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33526893

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25802366

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45675015

5 ay öncediscuss

Not affiliated with Zulip, but have you checked the "Free and discounted Zulip Cloud Standard" info on their help center? https://zulip.com/help/zulip-cloud-billing#free-and-discount...

Sounds like you could be eligible for free or for a significant discount. Also:

"If there are any circumstances that make regular pricing unaffordable for your organization, contact [email protected] to discuss your situation."

6 ay öncediscuss

Are you saying that the author engaging in online activism and presenting very common criticisms of SUVs in a sarcastic way somehow implies they're bad neighbors?

6 ay öncediscuss

I'd argue it's more like "looking at your keys while you're picking them". Selecting text is also known as highlighting and some people highlight text while reading / thinking.

6 ay öncediscuss

You don't need primary selection to avoid the keyboard, you can also hold right-click on your selection and release it on "copy" (or right-click on your selection then left-click on copy, more intuitive but slightly more cumbersome)

I agree it's less convenient (there's an extra step: explicitly copying the text), but in my experience it's also more reliable as you don't lose it by just selecting anything.

7 ay öncediscuss

I mostly agree, but a generalized attack at the remaining GitHub workers by calling them "losers" and then "rookies" is unwarranted and leaves a bad taste IMO.

See the edit history here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46133179

Edit: 1. just to be clear, it's very good that they have accepted the feedback and removed that part, but there's no apology (as far as I know) and it still makes you wonder about the culture. On the other side, people make mistakes under stress. 2. /s/not warranted/unwarranted/

7 ay öncediscuss

It's probable that licenses that explicitly allows revocation at will would not be approved by OSI or the FSF.

Copyright law is also a complex matter which differs by country and I am not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt, but there seem to be "edge cases" where the license can be revoked as seen in the stackexchange page below.

See:

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/are-lice...

7 ay öncediscuss

I think you are correct, but you probably misunderstood the parent.

My understanding of what they meant by "retroactively apply a restrictive license" is to apply a restrictive license to previous commits that were already distributed using a FOSS license (the FOSS part being implied by the new license being "restrictive" and because these discussions are usually around license changes for previously FOSS projects such as Terraform).

As allowing redistribution under at least the same license is usually a requirement for a license to be considered FOSS, you can't really change the license of an existing version as anyone who has acquired the version under the previous license can still redistribute it under the same terms.

Edit: s/commit/version/, added "under the same terms" at the end, add that the new license being "restrictive" contributes to the implication that the previous license was FOSS

7 ay öncediscuss

Yeah that's annoying. Maybe you could add a disclaimer on your blog saying you do not use AI to write and then just write however you like the most? I think it would help both yourself and those who want to avoid AI content.