avazhi

26 ms·

481.
by avazhi 3y ago
If a particular feature is controlled by a permissions prompt, saying that 'users can't be expected to be fully aware of' the consequences of a particular permission edit has, once again, nothing to do with security as everyb
482.
by avazhi 3y ago
Hence why I said 'this particular line OF COMMENTS' and not 'this thread'. Security and privacy are not the same thing, nor are they directly related. Lack of privacy can literally be designed into a secure system, which
483.
by avazhi 3y ago
Advertising has nothing to do with security exploits. Clearly we’re talking about browser exploits in this particular line of comments, not privacy, and with exploits so defined Chrome is far superior to FF. Most people here who use a Chrom
484.
by avazhi 3y ago
You just quoted 3 purely hypothetical exploitable features vs, say, Chrome consistently being the last browser standing at PWN2OWN over the past 10+ years (and Firefox is usually the first to fall). I’ll take real world practical protection
485.
by avazhi 3y ago
You are absolutely correct that Firefox is more customisable than Chrome, but my point wasn’t to compare the two on that front, but to make the point that the original comment - which spoke of FF’s ‘commitment’ to ‘customisability’ - is non
486.
by avazhi 3y ago
First, FF is less secure than Chromium-based browsers so not sure what you meant there. Just have a look at the results of the various browser hacking competitions. This has been a consistent result for decades. FF security out of the box h
487.
by avazhi 3y ago
Firefox’s handling of fonts, both within the browser itself and with its rendering of webpages, is my biggest issues with it. In Windows the difference in font representation in the address bar between FF and Brave/any Chromium browser
488.
by avazhi 3y ago
It’s an extremely tiny place with no geographic features, like mountains, whatsoever. This isn’t surprising and it isn’t something to extrapolate to anywhere that is even minutely dissimilar.
489.
by avazhi 3y ago
Which of Nietzsche’s books is the best for reading about this?
490.
by avazhi 3y ago
Or just - get rid of your TV. I’m no Luddite but I’ve quite happily forgone a TV - and the concomitant ads and other irritants TVs bring - for nearly 20 years.
491.
by avazhi 3y ago
Not everybody is an activist or trades in outrage, and the fact that this is so is a good thing. That’s one reason Twitter remains so popular: the vast majority of people don’t live their lives as a constant orgy of boycotts whereby they de
492.
by avazhi 3y ago
Sorry bud, Google makes its money spying on my email and my searches. Those are tradeoffs I’m willing to make. I absolutely refuse to ever watch ads, though. You say we can’t go back torrents, and maybe you can’t, but I’ll go full Luddite m
493.
by avazhi 3y ago
Can somebody explain to me, succinctly and without the slippery slope nonsense immanent in this link, why facial recognition is seen by some reasonable people to be a problem? I’m not interested in why anarcho-fascists or tinfoil hat libert
494.
by avazhi 3y ago
You must be a young person lol. Not sure you fully appreciate how stupid the average person is. It is literally impossible to get many men to think at all, let alone think ‘beyond themselves’.
495.
by avazhi 3y ago
Repeating platitudes about democracy isn't really much of a reposte to Einstein, though. And that isn't the bandy about the false equivocation that despotism is the answer - I think they've both stupid fucking ideas. Maybe we
496.
by avazhi 3y ago
The Cold War isn't applicable because both sides had the capacity to destroy the other - look up mutually assured destruction if you need to. That's completely different from a case of, say, Israel preemptively nuking Iran to prot
497.
by avazhi 3y ago
In your opinion. But making blanket statements to the effect that every preemptive use of nukes is evil is smallminded and laughable. It's pretty simple: If State A peddles a religion that promotes the extermination of all non-believer
498.
by avazhi 3y ago
I'm neither Israeli nor American, so no.
499.
by avazhi 3y ago
Go read the comment I was replying to a few times until you understand it. Nothing I said refers to hindsight bias. I'm saying there are absolutely situations in which a nuclear first strike would be rational, reasonable, and make comp
500.
by avazhi 3y ago
Which part was Einstein wrong about? I’ll wait.
501.
by avazhi 3y ago
I can, and I can find extremely rational and reasonable reasons for doing so. Just because you lack the requisite imagination and intellect doesn’t mean those who aren’t similarly limited are ‘evil’.
502.
by avazhi 3y ago
And that makes him evil? Get real, literally.
503.
by avazhi 3y ago
Telling people not to engage in risky behaviour isn't discriminatory or bigoted, bud. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
504.
by avazhi 3y ago
> I guess gaming is still an issue? Something of an understatement
505.
by avazhi 3y ago
Reddit sure is trying its been to be Digg v2.
506.
by avazhi 3y ago
The fact he didn't harm anyone (or anything other than his plane) is partly luck. Yes it's an uninhabited area, but there are hikers, campers, wildlife, etc. It's a public area. It was incredibly reckless. As for your comment
507.
by avazhi 3y ago
Remember boys, don’t fuck with the FAA. I hope Mr Jacobs ends up serving several years (5-10 seems reasonable) to very strongly dissuade others from having similar ideas in the future. General aviation is already a relatively high risk acti
508.
by avazhi 3y ago
Some real Plato Guardians vibe from all this. Maybe AI will someday in fact be the objective guardians we need (say, if all parties verify the code is objective ex ante). I think men are too prone to corruption and bias for truly bias-free
509.
by avazhi 3y ago
Not to unnecessarily shit on the parade, but I’m not sure this is by itself all that exciting, and calling it a breakthrough seems like an exaggeration. Diagnosing Parkinson’s isn’t really an issue - worst case you give the putative suffere
510.
by avazhi 3y ago
I like the name, personally.

More ›