I wonder what the reaction will be from the companies hiring Google’s advertising services. On the one hand, Google is clearly ensuring that they get as much money out of the deal as possible, but it also must lead to more people seeing the advertised brand, likely even encouraging it’s sales. The author suggests that this is a bad deal for companies working with Google, as well as Google’s users, but I can’t help but think that the companies purchasing ads from Google are coming out ahead on this one.

You should consider actually reading the posts you are replying to.

Yeah, the lightning connector is really great for being a reliable connection for a long period of time. If Apple had just made it an open standard that everyone could use, it would likely be the dominant connector today. At least, so long as some improvements could be made to data transfer and charging rates.

The only way that USB-C is better than lightning is all the things that a cable does

Begone Apple shill!

When the bad actor in question in a military or government organization, one of the realities of the modern world is that they will use your code whether you like it or not. They aren’t going to stop because you use a license that prohibits them using it, if they deem it something that is useful enough. They’ll just ignore your complaints and hide any wrongdoing long enough for you to go away.

If you publish FOSS, you are relinquishing a lot of control of how that software is used. A license that says “don’t use this in bombs” only works if all parties are acting in good faith, and I don’t think we can rely on millitaries playing nice if there’s an advantage to be had.

September 12th for the new iPhone.

What’s interesting to me is how differently C# scored vs Java.

But to know for sure we’d need statistics which we don’t have.

Precisely my point.

It’s basically just a really elaborate angry comment on a SanDisk SSD. Sucks that you lots your data, but it’s a single failure that could happen to basically any drive. Back up what you care about. Absolute waste of time ‘article.’

Only appreciating the big flashy outcomes of science is exactly how you end up with no science funding. Iterating and improving something is important work that should be applauded.

Honest to god doublethink right here.

There’s a massive difference between one’s intentions and the consequences of one’s actions. They are only talking about their intentions, while the rest of the community is bringing up the inevitable consequences.

When we all started using Chrome to get away from Microsoft’s web stewardship that arose from everyone using IE.

it’s basically the server that decides if it trusts the judgment of the client or not. Can’t wait to see that cat-and-mouse game going on

This is partially correct. The server will check that you have a valid token issued by a trusted third party, who will almost certainly be Google, Microsoft, or Apple. When you connect to the web page, your browser will give this token to the server and say “hey look I’m legit.” The token will have enough information on it to identify that it is relevant (being provided by a client that matches the hardware it is meant to verify) as well as a cryptographic signature that verifies it is in fact from the trusted third party. So it’s less the server trusting the judgement of the client than it is the server trusting the judgement of whatever third party is attesting to your system.

I have a hard time imagining a system that can simultaneously identify someone as uniquely human while still maintaining anonymity. Any given website or person online might not know your name, but you would have to have some sort of public key that would identify you. That key would be a fingerprint that could tie all your online activity together for anyone interested.