chadgpt2

Honest question: Is there anything scary about this apart from lowering your ISP's reputation score?

Both are terrible for privacy so it comes down to which one has a nicer screen now. :(

I'd rather have Google check an Apple phone attestation than have Google check a Google phone attestation, and vice versa, though, because you can assume each company is trying to keep as much information private to themselves instead of giving it to the other. Google is probably just getting "yes it's an Apple phone" and some kind of temporary token, instead of my IMEI, IMSI, phone number, all signed in accounts, biometrics and so on.

Luckily the marketplace of money will ensure that businesses who block their customers shrink and businesses who don't block their customers grow.

Violating ToS isn't illegal in most cases. Companies just put scary looking clauses in their ToS to discourage you from doing things they don't like.

How would the phone camera know the domain name of the website displaying the QR code it's scanning?

Was this FOSS or commercial?

If it's commercial software, you're paid to make it work, no matter how stupid that may be, and forced stupidity isn't your problem.

If it's FOSS, you can tell the user to deal with it and close the ticket.

Do people expect that Instagram can't read their Instagram private messages? I don't think people expect that. And E2EE is not nearly as cheap as the HN crowd likes to pretend—how do those devices get those keys if not through a central service? Especially if one of them is a web browser?

Interesting idea, thanks for the link

Insider trading is a part of it. If someone bets a few billion dollars that America will invade Iran, the probability shoots up to 98%, even though nobody else thinks it will happen. They can then run a press release about how their platform predicted the invasion before anyone else did.

It's like Uber getting on a phone call with the city to ask if it's legal to run taxis that aren't taxis.

Can you steelman TikTok's argument?

Do you have your own web page? Not just you, the parent commenter, but also you, the random HN reader. If not, why not?

It's fine if it's a bit sparse. Most people don't have a whole lot to publish on the internet.

It sounds that you spend money and receive a service which cannot be converted into an investment. Are the people housed, in the end? Is the housing market distorted by rampant speculation? Does the system work?

It is a problem if, no matter where someone is, they are always asked to leave that place. At that point you cannot special-plead the subway system.

The USSR did massively reduce homelessness by providing homes. They discovered the surprising fact they if someone has a home they are not homeless.

Another categorical imperative is "everyone who is bullied by the city and only allowed to sleep in the transit system shall sleep in the transit system"

This one is fine. If the city doesn't like it, it should legalise sleeping on park benches.

Another one is "it costs society nothing if you occupy an empty seat on a nearly empty car". Most people don't sleep in the transit system when the transit system is busy, anyway, because why would you sleep in such a noisy place? They are there at quiet times because they don't have a better place. They don't like it any more than you do.

Another one is "everyone is equal". People here are complaining that a homeless person sleeping on park benches takes away their ability to sit on them. But why is sitting considered more valuable than sleeping? Or why should the benches be reserved for people who HN readers agree with?

Doesn't matter anyway since ICE also targets legal migrants, permanent residents, and citizens.

It was my understanding that if a federal officer breaks a state law, such as murdering someone, the state can arrest them.

No, the main reason is because NAT is terrible and restoring the end to end principle is important if we want the internet to stay not separated into server networks and eyeball networks. If we want to decentralize the internet it's necessary that eyeball machines can talk with each other, not only with servers. This ability reduces the possibility of surveillance.

When IPv6 was designed it was normal for each IPv4 address to be traceable to someone's desk. Fortunately, as that changed with IPv4 so did it with IPv6, so we got IPv6 privacy extensions.

His solution is don't. Why would you? In fact, if you don't block the script that's running on one computer, the script operator won't need to run it on a botnet.

I don't know RMS's solution to spam or DDoS which are the real problems.

The person who scanned to QR code is knowable. They have their IMEI encoded in the response.

They we can build an encoding to allow arbitrary syscalls via stdin/out for convenience

Nah, they'd just pay botnet operators a few thousand bucks for proxy services.

Because society is based on power structures and the people at the top of power structures generally do not arrest themselves.