RaleyField

> the words I've written

Which words? I'm confident you misunderstood something.

> both disingenuous

Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth.

Here's an ingenuous question - god forbid saudis ever did something objectionable, would my perhaps justified complaints be filed under banned antiwahabbist speech? If we start bartering on speech I doubt there wouldn't be endless streams of money to minimize their suffering and indignation.

> It is possible to say

It's possible to say that for now. I doubt it will be for long after bartering starts. Just look at the current environment and parties that are on the rise, do you think they look like they would favor any pontification that go against them if they had any choice?

> my claim is that

People don't care about your claims - you want to change fundamental parts of society for a view that perhaps isn't that well thought out. Until your claim is virtually everyone's then assume that many people that came before us with different views than yours on how to "shape societies" have though their things through and conceivably had defensible philosophical positions and benevolent motivations behind them. There's a reason why ACLU fought and fights its battles, sometimes defending deplorable groups like KKK, it's not because they above all else favor obscenities.

> but the minimization of suffering.

All parties everywhere have in some way claimed they are in favor of that. But you wouldn't want other parties, who clearly don't know how to "minimize suffering" properly, minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere how to truly minimize suffering. So why should we let you minimize our ability to spread our views on that, as clearly we don't all agree that you know much about minimizing suffering?

I hope I'm getting downvoted for my sarky tone.

There have been stories that other vendors are even worse but it doesn't matter, they should've updated Defender 12 years ago concurrently with IE as they were developing the tech for Vista, because.. Defender has high false negative detection ratio and so is a plan B, hail marry kind of technology - you should do everything so that you don't rely on it working as it works only passably well for a percentage of stale threats. That's why if it and similar software is enabled it should affect your security only additively and should never contribute to attack surface. Instead in an effort to check if a file contains any of months old malware you get pwned by a bug in decompression function for a file that that you didn't even open that just passed your system and so you'd survive the attack if it weren't for the system that tries to help you survive attacks stupidly.

Welcome to 2006. Only took them 12 years.

Good news, everyone! I never wanted them. It would be swell if they could also start charging for syncing functionality and google account integration.

> $1 trillion

I wonder if there is some magical market cap boundary beyond which companies stop being grossly negligent. We know it's over 200B as Intel somehow never bothered fixing their products for decades, let's hope five times that is big enough.

I welcome it for two reasons.

First reason is that the transaction is more transparent. Contrast that to what is happening on the internet - in the cafe informed consent is given explicitly instead of implicitly and from often less informed internet users.

Second reason is that it will perhaps unintentionally push into consciousness of people the notion that private information has real, tangible value which would hopefully translate into change of awareness and attitude on the internet to treats to privacy that exist there that I think we both find more nauseating.

Shiru Cafe into every city!

Question for any lawyers - can they gag any benchmarks that are published against the terms? I'd imagine the license terminates - what kind of damages can companies realistically extract when you break your license agreement?

> It's not that there's anything to hide

Clauses like these make me think you think there is. Which is perhaps a bigger red flag than the attempted censorship in itself.

> Spreading wrong performance information can hurt a business.

Firstly, I'd suggest you should perhaps focus on trying to educate your users on how to make better performance tests - if they are bad at making benchmarks then they are likely bad at running your server as well.

Secondly, boohoo. Not spreading unflattering but correct performance information might not hurt your business but will hurt your customers.

Lastly, you are curtailing speech which isn't ethical and due to that I'm pretty ambivalent if any hurt visited your business. Imagine if everyone did that about everything.

> complex

> requires expertise

I'm sure every despot anywhere used a variation of your argument, something about economics being complex offshoot of mathematics that requires expertise to handle so you best not share any overly rushed opinions.

> Apache-built binaries

Which people can benchmark to their heart's content and I'd hope the clause would irritate many people into publishing their own benchmarks..

> I'm pretty sure they made this change in good faith

I'm not sure. Not one person in the entire chrome team raised their hand and explained that some users expect their browser to firewall web pages from the browser itself and to keep neutrality and not privilege some (first party) web pages?

> It screws third party logins and integration

Sounds like a feature to me.

> simply do not want to talk about this topic

I wonder if there are many respectable companies that don't allow you to post benchmarks. It's almost as if they don't have any confidence in their product that they have to resort to such extraordinary measures.

> Which is because they're computer geeks.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the reason to choose Android over iOS. Many use Linux on desktop because it is good enough or better than other choices, but might be ambivalent towards or disapproving of stock android. Android has its flaws and is far from being strictly better than iOS.

Monomorphization is a feature of compiler not the language, in the context of systems programming binary size often isn't the foremost priority.

Perhaps Rust compiler could get feature flag for controlling optimization priorities as I suspect in webasm world one would more often prefer more reasonable network transfer sizes than the fastest running version that is possible.

> May I suggest

Perhaps your suggestion could be valid.

Since you pointed that out, what set me off primarily is similar sentiment when parent hinted that op might be arguing in bad faith with "so it comes off as a bit of a complaint for the sake of it". General dismissive attitude of HN to anything privacy related (like this thread getting downvoted) only exacerbates things further.

> to you so it comes off as a bit of a complaint for the sake of it.

People like you really rise my blood pressure. No, it's not important to him/her, bad defaults[1] are important for everyone because they are incorrect design. The correct design is not to synchronize anything before obtaining informed consent.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern

There are different plastics. And you came off like aluminium is the only thing that defines premium experience. For me premium experience also includes some baseline functionality. Level of keyboard noise I'm not embarrassed about. Peace of mind when I turn my laptop for repairs when I image ssd beforehand. Running my laptop at temperatures that are more reasonable for me. That's premium experience for me, not completely arbitrary 2 mm lesser thickness and pre-1888[1] precious[2] metals.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_process

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument#Aluminum_a...

I switched to MacOS and gave it a good 3 month try, it pissed me off so much that I'm back on Linux.

> awful UX as a bonus.

Mac shell felt arcane and overly verbose, like a weird powershell clone that doesn't pay the price for its verbosity with typed io, and doesn't have autocompletion like every normal shell on Linux. Out of all file managers I still prefer Explorer.exe but I'd take any manager on any Linux DE over Finder, same with notepad or image preview software. macOS doesn't even come with PC keyboard layout for my country, I had to fish for it on the internet, something so basic I doubt even Linux failed to screw up in the last 20 years.

> Otherwise you buy the plastic Inspiron or whatever

Aluminium body is now premium? How about not sacrificing cpu life for fan noise? Or repairability. Or non-soldiered on ssd? Working keyboard? Why's that not premium?

Have they changed their policy on UAC not being considered security barrier on administrator accounts since W10? Windows was screwed for a long time[1], in practice not much better than running in SYSTEM all the time like in Windows 95 days.

[1] http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090611/uac-in-windows-7-s...

> @gmail.com address

Doesn't need to be, tons of people use G Suite. you'd have to be checking MX records.

> but if we claim this is malware then Android is malware too.

It is? Android is completely ridden with dark patterns[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern

What's your opinion on the Superfish incident[1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfish#Lenovo_security_inci...

How does you application prevent MitM attacks?

People's take on this is depressingly cringeworthy. Prison time was for trying to pass CDs as genuine Microsoft media.

Imagine this: You go to one of these shops looking to buy a new computer, you ask to get genuine copy of Windows. The shop can't guarantee genuine copy because they haven't compared hashes of these bootleg CDs with the ones published on Microsoft's website. If they did they would burn them themselves.

Customers were unnecessarily put at risk because data on those disk wasn't assured to be genuine. That's why damages aren't based on manufacturing price but price customers paid for the genuine product.

If you asked me I wouldn't fault them if they added damages for compromising combined purchases because people don't normally buy just software license but packages of hardware with genuine software.

And the sad cringe is in the fact that when EVEN you people don't see why chain of custody is incredibly important then you can't expect all these shop owners to be any better.

> There's nothing sneaky going on here;

It bloody is. Egregiously so. If they are deviating from expected behaviour[1] they should obtain informed consent and even then it's unethical. Half of Mozilla is screaming decentralisation[2], the other is centralising the web as fast as they can. I still haven't forgiven Linux Mint for similar shenanigans[3].

[1] Users understand instinctively the principle behind reverse dns lookup. If ISPs can resolve at least portion of domain names then it doesn't make sense to then introduce another completely random third party that isn't strictly necessary for the process.

[2] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/07/introducing-the-d-web/

[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/linuxmint/+bug/1133777

> if you shared the account details with someone, it seems to me difficult to claim that the forum and not the user is the one responsible.

I kinda wanted to make a larger point on how even if someone logs in to your service you don't know who you are talking with and might be going against wishes of owners of the account which would be unethical if you haven't priorly obtained their informed consent to do so.

Here are scenarios under which third parties might try to unethically obtain access to your user's data, perhaps as you described by logging in or via some other means:

1) PC gets hacked and owner loses control over their email. It's easy for a hacker to replace password and log in. You can't blame user for shity state of this industry when it comes to security. You are talking to a hacker.

2) SIM card is cloned via social engineering and passwords changed if email is improperly secured. You are talking to a hacker.

3) People share computers. Persistently logging out from websites on spouse's computer seems shifty. You are talking with a family member.

4) Not all people agree or understand that for some services people shouldn't share accounts. You can't know which pieces of data belong to whom so you can't give it out. It's also unreasonable to demand from all services to require each account to be used by only one person just for the sake of GDPR to be workable. You are talking only to one user.

5) People trade accounts. It's unethical to give data to a new owner if previous owner wasn't aware of what data you store. You are talking only to the newest owner.

6) People can be forced to sign in to their accounts. You are talking with an abuser.

In all these cases I think it isn't ethical to reveal data that couldn't already be accessed by normal means. It seems to me that GDPR, ironically, weakens users' privacy.

Apple has monopoly on their store and they have ability to play kingmakers on other platforms with app developers in every niche. Without presence on all relevant platforms your product or service will die off.

Does signing in really prove identity? What happens if I share accounts with someone else (against TOS potentially) and one person then abuses GDPR to dox the other person? GDPR seems so poorly thought out.

And I don't need the hassle to figure out who stands behind them and if I can trust them. Most of the time there isn't any good reason to trust them anyway.