hamburglar

They’re talking about consumer products that are cloud-based. You buy a security camera, for example, and you find out all functionality relies on the cloud and all your data is in the cloud. When the cloud isn’t available, your product doesn’t work. When the cloud is available, it’s spying on you.

We are talking about what the cloud means to an entirely different segment of the population to you and me.

I think the general complaint is that the machine doesn’t need to work that way, and a lot of people buy them not understanding that they work that way, because almost nobody wants them to work that way, and that the only reason for them to work that way is to unnecessarily sell ink that people wouldn’t actually need if it weren’t for this artificial constraint. Ergo, upset consumers that are angry at their printer manufacturers for making a user hostile decision.

Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge this obvious point makes me wonder whether you work in the hp inkjet division designing ways to piss off customers. I suspect you understand it quite well, though, and are just enjoying being a contrarian.

This is boat I’m in too. I get a ton out if my pro subscription, and I don’t hit the limits, but my Microsoft buddy was just griping about how the company recently imposed $10000/month token budgets on his team and he blew through his quota on under a day. The mind boggles.

Slightly suboptimal black ink coverage is not an “emergency” use case.

Obviously there is that chance. But just as obviously, someone who just wants to print their homework is almost always way more concerned with their printer “working” than they are with it printing “perfectly black” ink.

Come get me zuck.

Odd. I’ve used a fake name with Facebook since about 2009 and now I have a meta quest and they’ve never flagged my account or asked for id verification.

Because some people find arguing over semantics fun.

You’re aware, aren’t you, that a color inkjet that only squirts ink out of the black cartridge is, technically speaking, a black and white inkjet printer? A color inkjet is literally a superset of a black and white one.

You are bending over backwards to justify this user hostile practice. Most people wouldn’t choose to not print at all just because it “isn’t really a perfect black.” They’re just trying to get their homework printed.

I bought a color laser in 2004 and I’ve never replaced the C M or Y toner because I almost never print color. Miraculously, it is still happy to print “imperfect” black and white, which is exactly what I want.

> What, exactly, is going to go horribly wrong here ...?

Operating anything at scale teaches you that the universe of “things that can go horribly wrong” has a much better imagination than you. That goes quadruple with complex and squishy reasoning models.

I’ve seen a couple of really good examples of what can go wrong in this subthread, the most straightforward of which is that abruptly changing a fundamental behavior can break existing use cases.

I think the long term solution to the privacy problem is going to be to switch to a vehicle marking system which can only be usefully used by law enforcement. Example, if instead of license plates you had a transponder that sends out encrypted metadata about the vehicle in a way that only law enforcement could decrypt it. Obviously there are still problems of abuse of law enforcement keys but it raises the bar significantly and it prevents private companies from building a business out of collecting the data.

You introduce a new problem, which is that eyewitness reports of crimes etc can’t identify the vehicles as easily, but that could be viewed as an acceptable loss. Or the problem could conceivably be solved with more technology if we can have dynamically changing license plates (which, again, require law enforcement keys to map back to a real identity for the vehicle).

The only other way I see is that we change laws so that a company like flock collecting this data and then offering it to the government is treated the same as if the government collected it itself. But now that the cat is out of that bag and there is big money behind it, I don’t really see it going back.

This is exactly why my reaction to this was “who has one box of cables? Doesn’t everyone have an array of 18 stackable bins of cables sorted by function and vaguely grouped by vintage?”

Don’t ever let anyone take away your wildly overengineered cable shrine.

> Hey HN! I wanted to see how far you can push modern JavaScript Proxies without all the heavy overhead of a traditional framework. The result is Mador: a tiny ~80-line reactive state tuple ([r, w]) that lets you make any DOM element reactive using a simple CSS selector, automated dependency tracking, and batched microtasks. No build steps required—just drop it in. I built this over the weekend just to experiment with clean, zero-dependency reactivity. Would love to hear your thoughts or see where you'd run into limits with something like this!

Unsure why this comment from the author was flagged/dead but it certainly doesn’t seem to run afoul of HN guidelines.

I’d have a lot more sympathy for Twitter’s position wrt profit had they not explicitly told advertisers to go fuck themselves.

Well I certainly hope. I have my suspicions that if you pre-wiped your key but left the data “intact” but unusable, you open yourself to the law declaring that as somehow withholding evidence. Actually wiping the entire phone and restoring is certainly the safest in terms of how others may interpret it.

Not a fair comparison at all. If you know your backup failed you can simply try again.

That's not the scenario I'm talking about at all. I'm considering entering the duress code before you approach the border and before the border guard gets anywhere near it, on the assumption that you have a byte perfect backup which is trivial to restore somewhere in the cloud.

One can’t help but wonder if a motivated DOJ could twist a “destruction of the evidence” charge out of someone dumping a kilo of cocaine just before traveling to the US.

> Well, once you have been told to unlock the device, you're already in a legally binding process

In none of my scenarios am I describing actions to be taken after you have been told to unlock the phone. I’m talking about before you ever approach the border. There is no functional difference between wiping a key which encrypts the entire device (but leaving the encrypted data in place) vs wiping the entire device, from a security point of view, except one requires twiddling fewer bits to restore the data.

My point is that the law is unable to see that equivalence, but it is also unable to compel a different result. If choice A and B are identical for security purposes but the government can technically prosecute A but not B, all they have accomplished is forcing people to choose B.

The interesting thing is that the "don't carry the data" scenario of wiping your phone and restoring it after you're across the border is not functionally different from the "just don't carry the keys across the border" scenario. I would be comfortable with a dd archive of my encrypted phone contents in an short-lived S3 bucket that I could restore with a simple passphrase-derived key, for example. It's hard for the law to recognize that they haven't achieved anything useful by forcing me to do that instead of just lose the key.

One thing this case makes me wonder is if the government would have a problem with someone walking across the border with a completely virgin phone. They must have wiped it, right? Would they try to prosecute? How could they possibly know the defendant in this case actually had anything on his phone before the duress code was entered?

I like the idea of a phone that automatically wipes itself if I don’t act to stop it. I wonder about the legality of that if the duress code is considered “destroying evidence.”

If all you want to do is host repositories, “just” is the appropriate word here. For lone wolf work, all I care about is having a remote that mirrors all the changes and branches I create locally. It’s just redundancy. A git bare repo and SSH are all that’s needed.

I don’t do pull requests to myself, and I don’t need a bug tracker or CI.

Perhaps if you are prone to conspiracy thinking you should not be tracking your downvotes down to the minute.

> Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes?

Well, no, I never have, but if I did, my first reaction would be to think I struck a nerve and had a bunch of people react, not that there was a conspiracy.

People wanted them because mobile web sites sucked, and because it was difficult to build a decent mobile UX using early mobile web tech. That’s not true anymore but people still reach for apps by reflex even though it makes absolutely no sense most of the time. I don’t want your native code running on my device if a website serves the purpose just as well.

The “why are you making me use an app” backlash will come eventually and nobody will be saying “people want apps” anymore.

I sincerely hope not. That would not have the intended effect on me: I’d stop using bluesky. I’m just not that addicted to it.

I notice that the stat the article repeatedly quotes is MAU for usage of the mobile app, but one of the things I love about Bluesky is that you don’t need to use a mobile app to have a good UX. I use the mobile browser to access it, so I’m not in that MAU number. Perhaps bsky has a larger number of active users that don’t use the app?

The Lightning port is also incredibly physically robust. You can use it as a phone stand without worrying about damaging it. You can’t say that about USB-C.

I think I need to build “Hacker News Except All Arguments About Whether Or Not Something Is AI-Written Are Filtered Out”