5,648 karma · joined January 7, 2014
That graph shows that there's an obnoxiously large number of websites that don't support something that there's zero reason not to support.
It costs $0 and takes maybe half an hour to implement, browsers are screaming "not secure" to each visitor, and one in five websites still don't support it. "Make websites faster", on top of being vague, is way more difficult to implement.
See HTTPS adoption.
Nobody can tell you how many Rolexes there are in total, let alone the sales figures of a specific model of a Rolex. That's partially what makes them so valuable. People usually don't change Rolexes every year when the new model is out.
After a quick search, I couldn't find a source that claims that any website is blocked in Hong Kong, and several that claim that no website is blocked.
The Internet connection is monitored, there's pressure and self-censorship, but there's no blocked access to websites. It's easy to be bigger than zero.
EDIT: The biggest collection of the websites I could find lists 1129 that are still blocking access to EU citizens, and 252 that stopped (presumably, once they've become GDPR compliant): https://data.verifiedjoseph.com/dataset/websites-not-availab...
There are a very few problems that are comparable. The only ones that I could think of is climate change and nuclear program, because it's theoretically possible to harm humanity as a whole while doing no harm to locals.
Nobody gets killed, there are no consequences that they could even theoretically face, the possible dangers are someone else's, and you publicly display a defense mechanism that only the strongest nations posses.
From the government's perspective, this is nearly perfect. They'll be talked to sternly by some people, so what? That's where treaties can help, because other nations could point to it and say "we've agreed we won't do this because it harms humanity as a whole".
We've "solved" the nuclear crisis by signing treaties, and we can solve this one the same way. We have an international organization that can walk into any space in any country (that signed the treaty) under any suspicion that they might be making a nuclear bomb. Destruction of satellites, in comparison, is much more obvious and easy to spot.
When Firefox OS was around, they were still pretty niche.
It's absolutely not okay and no country should do it. Saying "you shouldn't" to everyone else isn't gonna be effective at all when the precedent is set. Singing a treaty (like the nuclear treaties we've signed) might.
The China's example is there because it puts the threat mentioned in the title into a perspective.
We definitely shouldn't destroy any satellites, but we already did. I don't see a reason not to compare them when we discuss how big is the threat.
EDIT: to those who downvote this comment, I'd love an explanation why you think I shouldn't make this comparison. As far as I know, no country destroyed more than one, so how else am I supposed to compare them?
While I would love nothing more but for it be the last country to do so, the precedent was set some time ago. The one that China destroyed in 2007 (or 2008?) was by far the biggest, creating thousands of pieces of debris bigger than a golf ball. 270 pieces (detected so far after India destroyed a satellite) seems pretty insignificant in comparison.
As an adult, I have way less patience to stare at a screen and try picking up stuff that I don't understand. I've tried finding some Dutch shows with English subtitles, but it was shocking how little content I could find.
If it's a comedy, there's not going to be any sort of quiet sounds, so I keep the subs off. If it's an action that usually has gunshots way louder than dialogue, I'm going to adjust the volume to those gunshots and turn the subs on.
If you're happy living as a lazy fuck just shy of poverty, you're welcome to do so. If you want some comfort, security, and the ability to not anticipate each 1st of the month, you'd probably still want to work.
I personally think that UBI is a requirement for us to be able to say that we each have a fair shot at success. Nobody should worry about having a roof over their head or providing food on the table. We have plenty of both for each human in the world already.
The worst thing that could happen to me is that I could have my Amazon account terminated. Everything physical on Amazon gets slapped with an additional $60-80 of taxes (even if the item itself is $10-$20), so I really don't use Amazon for anything else but its bookstore.
Books take months or years to write, and I want to award that behavior with whichever percentage of my $10 ends up in the author's pockets. Don't get me wrong, if I see a book I want to read on Humble Bundle on Kobo, I'll click on it first. But if I don't, I'll pick Amazon over Google Play Books, this Microsoft's one, or any other DRM-enabled store. Not because Amazon is in any way better than them, but because I know I can break the DRM effortlessly and reliably, while still pitching in something to the author. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't look for a different store — I'd still be pirating.
It's really not that complicated. You download them from a web interface and you drag and drop them into Calibre (with a de-DRM plugin installed). Done, they're now available together with all the ebooks that you got from other sources.
Having all the purchased ebooks in one place is more convenient for me, not less. The alternative isn't a different book store, it's pirating. While I do have an appreciation for all the books I got from DRM-free places, I don't pick what I'm going to read next based on where it's available. The majority of the books I want to read are available on Amazon, and breaking their DRM is very easy. They wouldn't get my money if any of those two were untrue. I'd probably revert back to pirating.
I am well-aware that it's a bad thing to do from a legal perspective (and especially encouraging others to do the same), but legal =/= moral. I'm paying a full price for them and treating them as my property. That includes being able to read them on any screen I want with whichever reader I want, even if I do end up mostly reading on a (physical) Kindle.
I could understand the argument that sifting through the pull requests would take them too much time that they could spend doing something else, but at least 8/12 of these could be solved by... you know, properly maintaining an open source project.
The article leads me to the conclusion that they have no intention of letting the community drive the company, and I could totally understand that. I don't see how any of the listed reasons could prevent them from making their code source-available without indicating an open source license.
To the established owners of IP. If you're not an established creator, you're going to be on the side that gets hurt by the IP. Some IP claims are gonna hit you sooner or later, and even if they're complete bullshit, you won't be able to do anything about them.
Established owners can generate enough of a fuss that they could cause an outrage big enough for some actual human to look into your issues, but if you're not big enough for that... tough luck. Try again from scratch once Google cuts you out. This happens regularly across their products, be it Google Play, YouTube, or Chrome's extensions store.
In practice... maybe. In theory, it's still there in their Code of Conduct, right at the bottom.
No need to rely on Chrome.
I've just opened Facebook's homepage after about 10 days. 15 new notifications, and 14 of them were absolute junk.
8 friend suggestions that can't be turned off.
4 updates from my friends for some reason (FFS, that's what the home feed is supposed to show).
2 new events I might be interested in, and one event I'm going to has posted an update.
Nobody in their right mind is going to use a product where there's 1 useful notification out of 15. If I have to ask myself why? multiple times while using a product that claims that I have control over what I see, that product may as well be dead.
If I wished them any good, I'd suggest that they seriously consider rebranding as soon as possible. The word "Facebook" makes me immediately think of frustration, and there's no going back from there.
Which leads back to the following quote from the author:
> But what happens if we block alternatives even if those alternatives are taking the privacy of the user very serious. I care about the privacy of the individual. I don't collect any personal information (I don't even store IP's). Even if you have your Do Not Track-setting turned on in the browser I do not collect any information (see our script).
[0] https://ericmathison.com/blog/bypass-ad-blockers-and-track-y...
That depends: Are you looking for updates to the new version or security updates?
Android One program gives you two years of regular updates, plus an additional year of security updates. My Nexus 5X received two major updates (from 6.0 to 8.0), but I kept using it until the security updates stopped. That's essentially three years of support.
Scroll a bit down and you'll see that you can filter through the servers based on your language and interests, as well as see the amount of users each server has. https://joinmastodon.org/
So indeed, it is a bit of an awkward time for it to be on the front page here.