I hate video links. The information could have been a few paragraphs of text that I could glance. Instead this much minutes of video that you can’t search, glance over, read while listening to something else… So it’s a pass for me.

this is not cancellation. This is Google taking a step back, and regroup to attack back.

First, persistency. You data lifecycle may not be directly proportional to your applications lifecycle. You may need it even after the app is shut down.

Second, RDBM systems provide a well defined memory/storage structure and API - “structured query language”. This enables you to easily query your data and acquire suitable views that are beneficial for your applications purposes.

Third, It’s always better to outsource your data layer to a battle tested, and trustworty database then trying to reinvent the wheel.

So this paves a road for you to focus on your business logic than splitting that focus for the data layer and business logic.

I see that the problem arises from the "visionary, but lower experienced newer developers (compared to the past generation) " trying to fix a world where “don’t touch it if it works crowd who has seen all old timers” built, by putting each layer over the older one. It has all the capabilities, but there is no “single vision”, no “well defined api”.

Old established paradigms are being broken. Some conventions are forgotten, new tooling and perspectives are being built.

Sure this means there is an unfortunate clash is happening.

I can’t say if this is a better, or wiser world or not, however I can only say this is the way now. You can adapt, try to embrace and push forward things or you can try to stay away and become one of the legendary Cobol developer crowd. We know they are there in the wild, but we can’t find them.

I suppose it’s “confusing perspective” worthy.

Then I hope it won’t get any traction.

I hope this is a joke and not intended to be real.

I have been with Firefox, since it’s inception. Never left it. And it never let me down.

What? The? Fuck?

I want to see the 10x hamsters!

That’s really unfortunate and a bad service provider for you. If there is nothing that can be done for that service, you don’t need to use that browser as a daily driver, but can just use for the services that you mention. And you need to keep nagging the service provider for support.

This is not just a browser war. It’s a war over your rights, your control over your choices, your privacy, what software and hardware you can use. You are already feeling how that affects your life daily, consider this in a mass attack on you.

WEI will enable service providers to decide what firewall you can use, what addons you can have, what version of the browser you can reach their websites, what antivirus software that you need to have, what cpu architecture, which tablet … This list can go on.

sure this won’t start in this manner right away. But I can assure you it will evolve towards more control service providers have on you.

I can’t answer any of these. I don’t have the knowledge. I am not using Firefox on mobile, only on desktop. (opera mobile user)

However what I can say is, you need to make compromises on some of your convenience to free yourself from a user hostile company’s software, or forks of it which strongholds you to their whims. Silicon Valley is trying to profit against your best interests.

Also as a long running Firefox user, I don’t get these incompatibilities at all. And if you start using Firefox and increase the usage numbers the incompatible sites would need to reconsider their stance.

I strongly suggest against using any Chromium forks. I already explained why in another post. I’ll put the link to that here: https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.ml/t/282011/Why-do-most-browser-companies-opt-for-a-Chromium-Blink-base#entry-comment-1301554

Thank you. I edited the main body too.

I never used Chrome. happy user of Firefox since it’s conception.

Did Opera announced any intent?

I still have trouble understanding the distinction between “a human consuming different artists, and replicating the style” vs “software consuming different artists, and replicating the style”.

I was not expecting a rabbit hole that deep. Who underwrite that api for shipping?

For now spec calls “holdbacks”, which are designed for this purpose. Attestors will fail randomly for a set percentage of the requests so this can’t be used as a whitelist. Surely this “holdbacks” will either be not implemented or dropped in no time by attestors.

Shots fired! Shots fired!

I rechecked the current spec. It does not fully cover what a user agent can ask to the attestor ( “content binding” to be defined). So we can assume this attestation spec is defined at the attestor.

Of course this does not mean attestor can not have different profiles to attest for.

So your comment even though is possible, just not defined yet. Which we can - I believe - rightfully assume will be in the final spec or implementation.

I am using Firefox too. However I also consume lots and lots of general purpose websites which in time probably become not consumable if you are not compliant. Which in turn either render FF not usable, or adopt the unfortunate standards.

Here it is. Another nail in the open web coffin.

Firefox even has tab sandboxes now. So you can even run personal aws on one tab and business aws in another. They will have their own sandboxes so won’t collide.

Block users all you want, but don’t expect me to “attest my hardware and software” from a 3rd party. Let alone make this a standard and think about leaving the keys to parties which are probably “themselves” only.

How on earth the expectation can be giving authority to third parties to set my hardware and software to be validated so they attest to an arbitrary standard which I will never have control over?

See the current SSL certificate authorities mess. I have to pay to a third party to asure my clients that my server can securely communicate with them. Now they are doing this to clients with a more strict manner.

It is, but If you review 3 lines of pr and not the whole 50 lines of the file without thinking of the overall picture, this happens. I got this while reviewing a pr like this. And most probably I approved similar prs for this file in the past. Shame on me too…

Yep that’s on me:) let’s call this second breakfast!

It’s not the real issue. I introduced that while anonymizing the data. It’s that a 3-5 liner code became a huge switch case by just incrementing the code and never thinking how it should be done. This was caused by like 15 engineers in time :)

Something like below would be huge improvement:

subs1 = ["cluster1", "cluster2"]
if subs1.contains(clusterName) return subs1

And no reason to state this is from production.

no one looks behind and questions how and why.

That’s a real issue. But still that makes a condition for data sharing.

That’s true. More info means more risk for more data sharing.

Sure that is something debatable. It’s just that if we take these information on face value, providing information just for “confirmed terrorists” could be considered lesser of the them. But if you take that out of the equation Signal provides less

I think that the results are “high” as much as 10 percent because the researcher do not want to downplay how “intelligent” their new technology is. But it’s not that intelligent as we and they all know it. There is currently 0 chance any “AI” can cause this kind of event.

Telegram seem to provide the least info, not signal.

is prowlarr better than jackett? Is it wise to invest some time to migrate?

With this logic shouldn’t all of the lego brick be recalled and destroyed in the mount Doom?!?!?!

A more important topic is, what federated data will be kept on Meta, and most importantly HOW that data will be processed/used/sold by Meta.

A more important topic is, what federated data will be kept on Meta, and most importantly HOW that data will be processed/used/sold by Meta.