5 ms·

70% of scenarios? If I were to guess, it would be 70% of your time that your happy with https, and 30% you don't. But its 99.9% or higher in reality. Also, did

by throw14082020 6y ago

70% of scenarios? If I were to guess, it would be 70% of your time that your happy with https, and 30% you don't. But its 99.9% or higher in reality. Also, did you know 80% of facts are made up? XD

j1elo 6y ago
That number was totally made up, of course :) that's why I quoted it... didn't really want to be too pedant and explicitly say it, but maybe I should have.
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  But the number matters to your point. Focusing on 70% of users to the detriment of 30% seems a lot less defensible than focusing on 99.9% of users to the detriment of 0.1%. The claim you made was “chrome is hurting a large minority of users and they should make a browser in a more fair way” but this changes when you change your made up numbers to something more like “chrome is hurting a tiny minority of users with weird use-cases like me and I don’t like it” FWIW, it feels like the problem is more that your use-cases don’t fit into web PKI, and I agree with you. But I don’t think harming the security of web browsing for the vast majority is the solution to those problems.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    > Focusing on 70% of users to the detriment of 30% seems a lot less defensible than focusing on 99.9% of users to the detriment of 0.1%. Ah, but now you’re measuring a different thing than the GP, users vs scenarios! I’d hazard a guess that at least 30% of users need to log into a router at some point or another. I hope it’s more than 30%, because everyone else is likely paying ridiculous prices for a crappy router from their ISP.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      I would be substantially surprised if 10% of people had logged into a router EVER and even those folks spend 99.999% of their time on actual websites.
    - dan-robertson 6y ago
      The change doesn’t affect routers (which I think most people don’t know how to log into these days) as there is no https default for URIs outside of the scope of normal PKI (ip addresses and single-level names). Are we disagreeing about the actual change or an imagined future one?

70% of scenarios? If I were to guess, it would be 70% of your time that your happy with https, and 30% you don't. But its 99.9% or higher in reality. Also, did you know 80% of facts are made up? XD

j1elo 6y ago

That number was totally made up, of course :) that's why I quoted it... didn't really want to be too pedant and explicitly say it, but maybe I should have.

dan-robertson 6y ago
But the number matters to your point. Focusing on 70% of users to the detriment of 30% seems a lot less defensible than focusing on 99.9% of users to the detriment of 0.1%. The claim you made was “chrome is hurting a large minority of users and they should make a browser in a more fair way” but this changes when you change your made up numbers to something more like “chrome is hurting a tiny minority of users with weird use-cases like me and I don’t like it” FWIW, it feels like the problem is more that your use-cases don’t fit into web PKI, and I agree with you. But I don’t think harming the security of web browsing for the vast majority is the solution to those problems.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > Focusing on 70% of users to the detriment of 30% seems a lot less defensible than focusing on 99.9% of users to the detriment of 0.1%. Ah, but now you’re measuring a different thing than the GP, users vs scenarios! I’d hazard a guess that at least 30% of users need to log into a router at some point or another. I hope it’s more than 30%, because everyone else is likely paying ridiculous prices for a crappy router from their ISP.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    I would be substantially surprised if 10% of people had logged into a router EVER and even those folks spend 99.999% of their time on actual websites.
  - dan-robertson 6y ago
    The change doesn’t affect routers (which I think most people don’t know how to log into these days) as there is no https default for URIs outside of the scope of normal PKI (ip addresses and single-level names). Are we disagreeing about the actual change or an imagined future one?