kf6nux

Is typing `combine(t1, t2)` instead of `t1 + t2` the largest issue your experts have to productivity? Most folks complain about a variety of factors beyond typing speed.

> function overloading, operator overloading

I think Go took the right approach with calling those bugs to be avoided rather than features to be implemented.

Don't be clever. Be understandable to most readers.

Just Brave browser. It has built-in ad-blocking and good defaults. It even has ad-hoc TOR if needed.

Yup, I was poking fun at the entitlement people feel toward FOSS developers who release free products.

Amusingly, the person railing against Mozilla didn't catch that it's free and used "the refunds" as an additional talking point against Mozilla.

> When do we fork Firefox because Mozilla is a failure at their job?

When we can and will do better.

FWIW, I heard Mozilla is offering full refunds to everyone that purchased Lockwise, which is way better than you'd get from any for-profit company.

I'd say helping customers spot fraud* is serving the customers' interests.

* I haven't executed the test suite, but fraud seems likely.

I'm honestly not sure what you're refuting here.

Are you saying the hash DB can't be updated or that already uploaded photos won't be compared to hash updates?

The system can be attacked at the opposite end as well. Governments can claim hashes are CSAM when the hashes are actually images typically held by political enemies.

The other reason why false negatives are mostly irrelevant is because the hash DB can be updated to include them, so the risk of storing them in iCloud remains the same.

I think you're right, YouTube will probably disable comments by default in the future as well.

> The harm that you can commit through paragraphs of text is so much more than you can in a single bit.

That's whataboutism. It's an important topic as well, but not what's being discussed.

I'm not sure why you raise elections, but the premise ("if the concern isn't the harm of the downvote") is antithetical to the discussion (which is concerning the harm of targeted downvote campaigns).

of the core voters*

There's a Venn diagram of audience and voters. Hard to know how large any of the three are, but apparently YouTube thinks the group of non-audience voters is large enough to take action against.

> This is a good thing

That's controversial. Determining correctness by popularity is one of the most common logical fallacies.

What isn't controversial is that allowing targeted harassment of creators is bad for YouTube.

I suspect their dataset was direct link dislikes. I.e. people who arrived at YouTube from another site at a specific video who dislike the video. That's the characteristic of a coordinated dislike campaign.

> the feature feeling useless, as even if you dislike, you might thing that you click will worth nothing as no one will see it

That was exactly the point. They didn't want the attack mobs seeing the fruits of their labor, making it feel useless, making fewer people mob.

That's a great point. Hiding the number is a sensible default, but allowing the creators to show it sounds good too. Especially for the common use-case of "how to" videos where a creator may be proud of the ratio.

I'm a little surprised no one reached for the obvious humor here: Google spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn humans will create mobs.

This was such an obvious/good change to make. Viewers will still be able to use views:upvotes ratio for determining a video's popularity/worth. A mob won't want to attack that ratio because a high view count could encourage more views.

Judging by what's bubbling up on HN, I guess I'm in the minority on this one.

> [can you reasonably say rallying a mob against someone harasses or silences that person?]

Metrics would support that. A large number of humans speak less when they see their speech is unpopular.

Why are you making that logical fallacy here? It wasn't present in either the video or the article.

You might be able to seek a criminal complaint (not that I recommend it). You can call your local DA's office to see what they think. It's unlikely they'd want to take on Tesla, but a CA DA might go after the driver for criminal negligence.

I don't fully get the use case either, but it's in a different category than Postgres or Microsoft SQL because it runs in the browser and can be made part of your web app.

> The more we remove privacy by tech the less we lose it by law

On its face, that seems like a false dichotomy. Can you expand?

Generally, I see the erosion of our right against unreasonable search and seizure to be something that hurts everyone (regardless of an individual's ability to make fewer searchable spaces).

That's market cap, right?

When people say something is a $x industry, I normally think revenue per year.

How big is the industry as measured by transaction/service fees?

I'm imagining a better world for both gamers and corporations. One where DRM and anti-cheat aren't included, you pay for the game you can run locally, and you pay a subscription for cloud gaming access which has exclusive access to a set of game/world servers.

Want to mod, LAN, or play casually? Play locally.

Want to play without cheaters? Choose your friends wisely or play on cloud gaming.

Lack of DRM drives interest in the game, which drives interest in cloud gaming subscriptions due to wanting cheat-free gameplay.

Blocking ads by accident isn't an ad blocker. I'm glad the "Tracking Protection" feature is there, but it isn't enough.

Their history of shoot first ask questions later would be concerning as well. (Regarding locking people out of their Google accounts.)

While I'm sure your bank could lock you out as well, you basically never hear about it. But with Google, there have been multiple high profile lockouts that show both 1) it can happen to anyone, and 2) getting access restored is slow, difficult, and not always successful. That's not the behavior that makes people feel like their money is safe.

One could say we've know how to convert CO2 into fuel from the time we first learned agriculture.

Aren't Ombuds generally limited to investigations and recommendations (not enforcement)? What country colors your context? (e.g. I'm in the US where federal Ombuds aren't much of a thing, though similar roles may be filled by other persons).

I assumed that was a normal chat queue and switched to an email ticket. XD

It's even more mundane than that.

They just require you to allow their ads during your call. It's privacy preserving ad tech in exchange for 1:1 video calls.

That's way better than sites requiring you to allow 3rd party ads to use their site.

EDIT: I just saw they let you set your ads to "0 per hour" and still let you use this service. I wonder if that's an oversight.

I don't want to destroy him. That was a weird thing for you to say.

I didn't hear about Apple settling for a lot of money. How much was it?