beeboobaa3

This worked, thanks!

{ "fps": 60, "gpu": "amd radeon r9 200", "isMobile": false, "tier": 3, "type": "BENCHMARK" }

It's a AMD Radeon RX 6600.

It worked on Chromium after passing --enable-unsafe-webgpu --enable-features=Vulkan

Status: Error

Firefox on Linux: Error: Unsupported device: "webgpu". Should be one of: wasm.

Chromium on Linux: Error: no available backend found. ERR: [webgpu] Error: Failed to get GPU adapter. You may need to enable flag "--enable-unsafe-webgpu" if you are using Chrome.

Passing the --enable-unsafe-webgpu flag results in the same error.

You find out. Doubly so if you're working on safety critical systems like an airplane

It's more about the javascript spec. If the spec says "thou shalt support this and that" and one of the browsers implements more than that, we are now back in the 2000s where one browser may be supported by some websites but others aren't.

You should always question if the requirements you get make sense.

They're not solely responsible, but they are responsible.

These "software engineers" also killed 189 people. I don't think Boeing losing billions is all that important in the grand scheme of things.

I don't experience a murderous rage from drivers, but I'm also not american.

Is this an actual backdoor, as in, put in there on purpose by the manufacturer? Sure sounds like it.

That's for their insurance to deal with.

Meanwhile musk with his truck is like "YOU won't be the one who gets injured if there's an accident!"

They'll just have to learn to deal with that.

Shouldn't this have been a firefox mobile extension?

I would have expected the people who trained these systems to not format their Q/A samples to sound authoritatively while they knew the system was going to be spouting nonsense.

Next time just ask them a few questions about the programming choices they made. Far easier.

It needs:

* An easy way to "install" the app. People want an icon on their home screen.

* To work offline and have a decent amount of storage for images and such.

* To start in a reasonable amount of time, even if the network is flaky.

And a bunch more of requirements. But just these three are hard to accomplish as a PWA. It should be possible, sure, but you'll be investing a lot of development time in what eventually amounts to an inferior experience when compared with a native app.

> Why does patreon need its own app? Why can't it just be web based?

because apple gimps their web browser capabilities & performance to incentivize developers to enter the walled garden

Not so simple if you want to pre-render and cover multiple zoom levels and a large area

The non-indie market isn't saturated enough for that, and publishers will collude to never allow any of their games to promise this so gamers won't get the chance to get used to it.

> 1. It passes, and subsequently a large amount of games just don't launch in the EU

Unlikely, it's a huge and valuable market.

> 2. Nobody can write enough caveats to make it workable, and it's abandoned.

The EU has demonstrated they care about companies following the spirit of the law, not the letter. It'll be fine.

> 3. People don't care because it's just videogames.

Clearly they do. It's been making the rounds online for the past few days and now even made it to the top of HN.

Wonder how that'll have to work for those who root their phones. I know samsung refuses to update rooted phones and has made it difficult to acquire the firmware files to manually update.

> Most antivirus solutions built into operating systems such as Microsoft defender are unlikely to find suspicious extensions that are exfiltrating your data

They can flag antivirus signatures just like everything else, and I've experienced this happening in the past. In the end, extensions are just some javascript/css files in a folder and they get scanned just like everything else.

> Extensions autoupdate

So can any piece of software if it wants to. It's trivial to make an updater start on boot.

> It is not uncommon for large spyware companies to buy up a bunch of the most popular chrome extensions, and proceed to inject them with malware

The same can, and has, happened for "regular" software.

> Since an extension runs inside your browser, it's much easier to forget that they're essentially always running, whereas once I exit a desktop app it's presumably gone

Desktop apps can trivially just not show a window if they want to. They can trivially add themselves to autostart. It depends entirely on what they're doing, just like an extension.

You can thank apple for that. If they would just implement WebBLE all of these remote config apps could just be webpages. Currently no one is doing that because you'll need an iOS app anyway, which coincidentally lets apple claim their 30%.

I'm interested in the security of the app. Is it authenticated? How? Can an attacker change cell types and start a fire or other dangerous situations?

I'm sure this will be downvoted as a low quality HN comment, but honestly the only valid response here is: lol fuck off

Like what? I'm not familiar with any daemons that expose this info on a network interface. Maybe identd? AFAIK that can expose the username, none of the other fields, but is typically set to an alternate identifier.

Or do you mean shared mainframes with many users on the same system? That'd still be local to the system, you just happened to have access to that system.

Are you sure you're not just thinking of ldap/directory lookups?

> Android used to have a network permission but Google removed it.

That's because google is in the ads business and wants apps to always be able to exfiltrate data to google (google analytics, google ads, etc) & display ads without needing additional permissions.

Having a network permission means there is an incentive for apps to not have the network permission which means they can't load ads. And Google wants you to look at their ads.

> but you aren’t going to be writing code to read every web page a user visits by accident

No, instead you're just reading all files on the filesystem, including the browser's cookie store or whatever. The data you are, or can be, handling is just as, if not more, sensitive since it's literally a superset of what the browser has access to.

> The lack of sandboxing in desktop applications is bad

Some sandboxing would be nice, but the Google/Apple approach of needing to beg the vendor for every little permission isn't the way to go, either. I'd rather have software that can actually do things as opposed to only having useless sandboxed "apps".

What are you even talking about? Every piece of desktop software you have ever ran has more permissions than a browser extension.

Is your stance that hobbyist developers should not be allowed to develop desktop software or CLI tools? The entire software development ecosystem would collapse in an instant. Or are you just not familiar with Windows & Macs (lack of a) permission system?