IggleSniggle

I don't think that's quite what happened. Google got in anti-trust trouble because they have an unfair advantage in user-tracking, given logged in Chrome accounts. Removing third-party cookies hurts other privacy-invading companies without substantially affecting Google. It was still somewhat on track to be removed from Chrome until they lost their antitrust battle, and Chrome was required to be spun off. With Chrome's new future, and Google's new legal constraints, there's less incentive to try and make Privacy Sandbox work. At least, that was my understanding; I didn't follow it all that closely.

One of the primary advantages of having a software engineer (or lawyer, for that matter) on staff isn't that they produce software, not exactly. It's that they guide the flow of process, and can adapt the river as needed to keep the business running smoothly.

Historians, imho, serve a similar purpose for society at large. They digest the information of the past to make sense of it for today, and sometimes they build dams that redirect the informational flow of future history.

An Ops contributor who saves the company millions in operating costs, however, might be extremely valuable, but may or may not be valued.

I think I know what you're talking about here, but maybe not. Can you elaborate?

It took me until my 40s to really enjoy Mozart. The thing is, if you approach it from the stodgy perspective of a "Classical Music Enthusiast" then it's easy to miss what's delightful about it, but if you aren't trained in listening to classical music, it's not that accessible.

It's like that with a lot of jokes. If they don't make you grin and laugh, it's hard to "get" what's so special about them. Bach you can kinda just zone into and gradually uncover what's special (or not), and just keep uncovering, or fuguing out, or whatever. Mozart, the joke is here and gone, and if you missed it, the whole thing just kinda doesn't seem all that special.

Like a joke, you can have the punchline explained to you, but it won't make it funny, and you'll question the taste of those who do. But if you find yourself grinning, you'll only find more things to grin at the more you listen. As a kid and young adult I kinda hated Mozart. I was really surprised when I started liking it, more and more, and now I can't get enough.

That's been my experience with Mozart, anyway.

To be quite frank, as a high-trained musician, I like almost all of Bach's works played slower. You can almost always slow them down more than whatever you think is too slow and find new things to appreciate. Paulstretch to the rescue!

I've always loved this image set. I have a feeling it's very different in 2025 though; would love to hear what current or very recent employees at these companies think

Yes, we do treat that as a valid signal. But users still shouldn't use it today anyway, since it has no teeth and many companies will use it as part of a composite identifier. If Do Not Track had more regulatory teeth, I think it might have gone somewhere.

Global Privacy Control (GPC) is the modern alternative, and the mechanism by which California's privacy legislation / CCPA is largely handled from a technical perspective. Unfortunately it is not available by default in Chrome, but it is in eg Firefox / DuckDuckGo browser. Because it has legal teeth, it has more power to give you a tracking free experience even if a company had the technical capability to track you.

It can still help you even if you're not in California because geolocation is not perfect, but it does provide the ability to monetize ads that are tracking free. The threat of enforcement has to be real and continue to be demonstrated, though, or it won't last.

iCloud Private Relay also causes tracking companies a lot of real pain (sort of a mini-Tor where Apple and CloudFlare each have only half of your unlock key), but it's a technical bandaid with a variety of flaws that can break many legitimate things.

Ultimately each situation is one that requires judgement, which is why I think a legislative/judicial answer is the only one that ultimately holds up. GPC allows for a little more nuance than DNT. People care about the intent of respecting "Do Not Track." It some cases it may requirement a judgement about whether or not a company violated that request, not whether it was "technically impossible for the company to violate that request (we thought) but oh oops it was possible...I guess that just means we need to make it harder, the company doing the violating was okay because they worked within the bounds of what was technically possible."

A company that violates this privacy, especially when you've indicated that you do no consent, should have to face penalties. And because we expect some companies to go out of business for violating these rules, we should also make sure that their "data assets" aren't simply transferred to some new company in bankruptcy court when an adverse ruling comes down.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The industry made us all believe they do, in what began as a differentiator from offline ads, that quickly spiraled into the current day insanity. Browsers have been playing cat and mouse to a degree, but except for the annoying cookie banners that everybody hates, regulation like GDPR is the thing that has restored some small piece of sanity. There should be more and better regulation + enforcement to better align ad tech with the interests of the public.

Is that all? I hadn't thought about that aspect, but I find it a little surprising that, even just considering post-training, it isn't more expensive than that.

I'm currently at a small ad tech firm and while I can't speak for other outfits, we definitely are extra careful about respecting user consent indicators. Because we are small, it's not easy to do this, because there are many possible ways for users to "reject". This includes situations that merely imply non-consent due to inaction, rather than active non-consent like a reject cookie indicator, or living in a jurisdiction that makes non-consent automatic (as it should be!). Many of the "reject cookies" tools are especially useful because even if a website doesn't respect your choice (and therefore tries to send data to us) your browser can still tell us if you are non-consenting. This means it's easier for us to notice non-consent and drop the data as soon as possible, before any logging or analysis can occur.

We do not materially benefit from this in any way, nor do we market it. I am not a spokesperson for my company nor do I want to be publicly identified with it. I'm advocating here because you said "not a chance" but there is a chance.

It's not just that we are worried about some sort of regulatory enforcement, either, although existence of such regulations does help convince the less scrupulous people from pursuing a bad path.

The free internet is built on ads. I still believe in the free internet. I still think we can make it work. I welcome regulation and regulatory enforcement even though it's hard for a small outfit like us, because it reduces the chances that our ad tech has to compete with less scrupulous people. I think we've survived as a small outfit since roughly the dotcom era because we've tried to be good stewards. People wouldn't need uBlock if there was better regulation/enforcement, and companies like mine, who are trying to do the right thing (even as we operate in the loathed ad space), would benefit.

I'm worried about AI on this front because it means in the future your ads will be served up to you out of a black box instead of out in the open where we can all inspect who is trying to get what from us (and block bad parties via eg uBlock), and, to a degree, who is trying to shove what down our throats.

I don't do front end these days and don't really have a dog in this fight, but most code is nouns and verbs, while design choices are adjectives and adverbs. When the business decides that we need to run, not walk, you can just change the name of the function from walk to run instead while changing the code, if that seems appropriate. With CSS selectors, when the business decides we need to change the "feel" of the page from "spiky" to "gentle," you might only want to change some subset of the design that was built up around the "spiky" concept, while leaving others as they are. There is not a comprehensiveness and absoluteness to the changes, and it's a lot harder to reason about "pure functions".

Add to this that CSS is like a codebase built on try/catch and throwing errors for its primary control flow mechanism, where the only thing that tames this is the naming conventions employed, and you've got a situation where the names really matter in a way that they don't when we're doing other programming, because the names are the only connective tissue to help you reason about the "control flow" once your css starts getting complex.

DNS lookups are still frequently in the clear, and even if they're not, that just means you're trusting some DNS-over-HTTPS provider. The incentives are perverse.

And of course whoever you are performing your search with, like, oh, an ad company like Google, Meta, or Facebook? They just might use that search data for something.

This is the more interesting answer to me because it's a reminder that everyone is playing a different game.

I used to play games to win, but now I play games to maximize the collective enjoyment of playing the game. This shift began with my spouse (who is a very sore loser) but continued with my children. I still let them lose sometimes because I want them to know how to enjoy a losing game, but I (selfishly) want them to enjoy games as much as I do, so that's my focus, and I will play to lose (as non-obviously as possible) frequently.

When I play games against good players now, I notice that I've lost a lot of skill in the kind of strategic ruthlessness required to win. I found this surprising, because playing in a way where you're trying to "fix" the outcomes for other players and modulate the mood of the game based on outcomes still requires a great deal of strategic insight and clever play. I guess the additional attention to the social and emotional dynamics must naturally reduce focus. It's kind of a shame, because you can't maximize enjoyment with a skilled player without being skilled, but I suppose the trade off is that there will always be more unskilled players who can benefit from enjoyment maximizing play than skilled players who will suffer from subpar opponents. Naturally, skilled players are already getting a lot out of the game, or else they wouldn't be playing enough to become skilled.

I h8 it when thir teens get all cheeky like that. Hopefully they'll have matured a bit by 21.

Edit: it seems people don't like my Fibonacci joke. I thought I had this kind of thing figured out by 34.

Yup. I can't even enjoy hacking if the taskmaster is MYSELF

Also, as a cousin comment alludes to, for there to be one of the above supernovae, there will also be a supernova named SN2067iamsoverystupidoopssorry and a SN2067thisnamingschemawasabadidea

Not only that, it happened a long long time ago. I'm no astronomer; would that be more or less supernovae?

It's in the article. SN2067aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa vs SN2067aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Apparently astronomers find base26 very straightforward and reasonable!

Oh. Whoops. I thought you were saying the other comment was a huge spoiler, not that YOURS was, and I was like "eh, it's not THAT big of a spoiler." Ah, well. With that mystery abolished, time to return to the likes of Mario!

sounds of brain returning to monke

I don't think you're taking their argument in good faith. At least my read on what's being said here is that the psyops lock-in effects that Apple uses are too strong.

It's not just "blue bubbles," but "blue bubbles" seems like a good shorthand to me. It's also things like Hand-off, or Universal Control, or getting Messages on both iPhone and Mac seamlessly, or being on the same WiFi network allowing your iPhone/Watch to work as a tv remote for the Apple TV even if you're just visiting a friend. Features that any platform can and does enable, but that do to Apples vertical can work seamlessly out of the box, across all the product lines, while securing network access in the ways most users will want, creating a continuous buy-in loop wherein the more Apple products you buy, the more incentive there is to buy exclusively Apple.

And it's a collective "you." If your entire family uses exclusively Apple products, then you'll be the only person who can't easily use eg the Apple TV in the living room, or the person "messing up" the group chats with "User reacted with Emoji Heart to [3 paragraph text message]," or the one trying to decide between competing network KVM software platforms so that you can use your tablet when your 12-yo can just set their tablet next to their laptop and get a second screen without any setup. Nevermind that these are all social engineering techniques that only exist BECAUSE Apple chose not to play nice with others, they still socially reinforce a deeper commitment to Apple products with each additional Apple product in the ecosystem.

I say this as someone "stuck in the blue bubble" with eyes open about what's going on. I'll keep picking Apple as long as they're a hardware-oriented company, because their incentives are best aligned with mine for the consumer features they are delivering (for now): consumer integration that sells hardware. It's insidious in its own way, but not like "hardware that sells eyeballs" (Google/Meta) or "business integration that sells compliance" (Microsoft).

Frankly, the demo isn't really a demo, it's a prequel. You might enjoy the demo if it's been awhile since you've played

Can someone please tell Apple we are overdue for a nostalgia line? I want an iPhone 3GS form factor so bad. I would even accept the 480x360 resolution. There was no more perfect design than the little "worry stone." I have a 13 mini and I think it just wasn't small enough to sell better. You still can't quite one-hand operate the entire screen comfortably.

One obvious one to consider is the diterpenes in filtered vs unfiltered brewing methods. Filtered methods will remove most of these. Diterpenes will help reduce inflammation and may enhance the flavor of the coffee for some, but the ones in coffee are unfortunately also linked to increased LDL (bad cholesterol), so as a drug choice, there's not a clear winner in whether filtered or unfiltered coffee (as in French press, for example), will result in a better black coffee.

From my own anecdotal experience, lower inflammation has a wide variety of cognitive benefits, regardless of the means, while things that increase my inflammatory response (for example, allergies), make it much harder to think clearly.

Side notes: I don't drink milk so can't speak to the lipids that might further influence intake. But even the heat of coffee will have an effect: if it's scalding hot, some of the caffeine will be absorbed in the mouth, and if it's very cold, it'll wind its way further through your system before being absorbed.

I'm just a coffee drinker, so take all of this information with a grain of salt, unless your sodium is too high? Caveat emptor

FWIW, I like playing VR/MR games because they are "sports" that don't require me to drive anywhere or organize anything with other people. To me it's about equal fun as downhill skiing or skating at the roller rink but a lot cheaper than either, and without needing to travel.

Have you tried current gen VR? Honestly, the experience of playing VR Ping pong is SO much like the real thing on the Quest 3. Synth riders is also fantastic. But the best experiences don't really fit into the "video game" box imho; it's closer to buying roller blades / skates or ski equipment.

I was also surprised at how much mixed-reality made a difference for me personally. I'm much more likely to strap the thing to my head when I can have awareness of what's happening in the physical world.

The thing is, Government already had access to its own data. It just was required to follow the law that was put in place by the voted in Legislature to prevent abusive situations that could arise from limitless unrestricted access without oversight. It was there, and even non-government citizens could get access to it by following the procedures; procedures put in place to prevent "selling the farm," voted on by elected officials, with the support of their constituents.

The unelected bureaucrats should be responsible for upholding the Law and the mandates of their position, not to any individual or party. And the Law is set by Congress, not the Executive. The Law is enforced by the Judiciary, not the Executive. The whole point is to have an engine that can keep working and keep accumulating domain expertise regardless of which political party is in control, beholden to the Laws set by the Congress over time, representing all constituents over time, held responsible by the courts, and not the whims of any given administration (or, for that matter, any single Congress). The entire problem _is that_ we now have what may effectively be lifetime leaders being put into positions and _being told to ignore the law and their government issued mandates_.

And so much reeks of a Watergate like situation, except done publicly instead of in secret, with Congress and the Judiciary refusing or unable to hold any of these people to account. "We will now gather all information about our adversaries and fire anyone who doesn't give us the keys to the vaults, and if anybody doesn't like it, good luck, because the courts are going to be VERY busy, indefinitely, as we proceed to break every law the Legislature has issued, and is unlikely to have time to hear your case for a few decades."

But let's take at face value the idea that the Executive doesn't need to follow or even acknowledge the decisions of the Legislature, and that they can tell anyone to do anything whenever they feel like it. There's a pragmatic issue, not just a separation of powers issue: How can you possibly accumulate domain expertise, and what motivation would you have to accumulate that expertise anyway, when every agency is going to be dismantled every 2-4 years?

Besides, these bureaucrats are "elected" in a way similar to the Electoral College. We vote in the Legislature, and the Legislature votes on the appointments. If we don't want "lifers" then we should be voting on term-limits for these positions, not allowing the wholesale remodeling of our bureaucracy every election, where "just anybody" can come in and walk away with whatever they can loot each cycle.

My most painful debugging scenarios with Docker networking (for me) has always been dealing with non-TCP traffic. But still, this seems useful. One thing I don't understand is why this requires an account token? Does this require a network connection to subtrace? It seems like this should all be running locally, and these kinds of connection details are _exactly_ the kind I would not want to leave the host, let alone go to a third party.

js doesn't have this particular problem, but it does have both `null` and `undefined`, which will have varying semantically different usages depending on local conventions.

For example, some will prefer to use `null` to mean that a value is _intentionally_ missing (for example, the db explicitly returned a null value), while `undefined` does not have any such connotation. These exist for frontend engineers to navigate decisions often far removed from their influence.

Anyway, `null != ''` and `null != 'null'`, but `null == undefined`. However, `null !== undefined`.

A lot has been made of js Truthy/Falsy equality operator, but most js programmers will take steps to actively avoid it coming into play. Probably the `void` operator is still under-used though in frontend code, though, since there's some pretty surprising legacy things that can happen when interacting with DOM APIs (like `checkbox.onclick = () => doSomething()` resulting in different checkbox behavior depending on whether or not `doSomething` returns a boolean or undefined).