4 ms·

This is not universal. I work in a company that uses many different products that (attempt to) make external API calls with extremely sensitive data, and none

• rincebrain 2y ago
  e: You changed this from "This is not true." to "This is not universal." in the time when I was writing this response, which is fine, but I wasn't claiming this is universally the case, I was claiming that in some environments, this is how the logic works. It's more or less the same outcome and rationale as when JetBrains had theirs in a "plugin" that you couldn't effectively block even if it was a noop because it required an API key. Sure, in an environment where external access is not necessary or can be easily allowlisted, that works fine. But on someone's interactive workstation, where they might need to access parts of the internet without getting explicit allowlisting of every web site, then it's a different set of tradeoffs, and not every company implements this the same way.
  • throw10920 2y ago
    From the perspective of "some corporate environments will block your software if it doesn't have this feature", then I suppose I can understand the frustration that users felt. I would argue that there's more nuance, but the feeling is reasonable - I would also be frustrated if a piece of software that I used and loved at work was in danger of being taken away because of the addition of a feature that I didn't want in the first place!