ddalex

77 ms·

931.
by ddalex 7y ago
Yeah, but it doesn't mean you have to serve them from the same codebase. Partition the old urls to a thin service that only does the URL transcription and issues the 301 and you're done
932.
by ddalex 7y ago
you'll never leave the google top domain ever again you wouldn't even know you're not leaving it, because the address bar changes
933.
by ddalex 7y ago
would be funny if Google would code for somebody else's problems
934.
by ddalex 7y ago
Perhaps Edge. A recent version.
935.
by ddalex 7y ago
This. It can allow you to see the google results and navigate from them seamlessly without actually leaving the top-level domain. It effectively captures the entire audience. There will be no more Internet, it's going to be a Google po
936.
by ddalex 7y ago
The idea here may be to invalidate certain add-ons after they have been released in the wild by revoking the certificates used to sign them.
937.
by ddalex 7y ago
Gopher had the right idea. Menus only. What executable code?
938.
by ddalex 7y ago
Not less safe. Perhaps not as safe at others. Such as of those where the front doesn't fell off.
939.
by ddalex 7y ago
But they don't stop people coming into the country or seizing their property. They are temporarily withholding the devices and copy the data. That's why you use full disk encryption - is they want to copy and store pseudo random d
940.
by ddalex 7y ago
When I was working for $Big$Corp, I was explicitly instructed to 1) always shut down the devices with full-disk encryption 2) never give up passwords 3) surrender devices without opposition or bargaining (cooperate) and 4) call company lawy
941.
by ddalex 7y ago
> other less-pubic successes Freudian slip right there if I've ever seen one
942.
by ddalex 7y ago
5 hour detention is nothing - expensed vacation :) Extraordinary rendition to the Guantanamo Bay is what concerns me.
943.
by ddalex 7y ago
I can provide more details next week once the article is out, but I've fed it a corpus of one liners and it started to produce weird and sometimes very funny liners :)
944.
by ddalex 7y ago
No, it's not. However it breaks the trust in the Cloud Flares integrity they so proudly mention in this thread. Once they banned something, how can you trust them to not ban something else, perhaps a bit more silently next time?
945.
by ddalex 7y ago
Probably it's all stored in plain text on an unsecured S3 bucket.
946.
by ddalex 7y ago
I assigned the Bixby button to WhatsApp in settings, no root needed
947.
by ddalex 7y ago
That's because you don't know what you're missing. Or, at least, that's what FB wants you to think. FB is a vortex of dopamine hits, and zero 0⃣ value. It made me mad to be addicted to news I don't care about. I&#x2
948.
by ddalex 7y ago
humans have a brain that's difficult to reproduce in an economical fashion so far; tech can't even saccade the current cameras to track moving objects with clarity
949.
by ddalex 8y ago
The question now is fight them or join them. On Microsoft people had chosen to fight, because the tech was horrible in effect, and Linux made much nicer server platforms. On Google, I'm not so sure. The tech is nice, and everything wor
950.
by ddalex 8y ago
What a beautiful premise for a short story. Write it!
951.
by ddalex 8y ago
perhaps not on mobile chrome (it's been a while since I've tried) but certainly on mobile firefox and mobile samsung (which is chrome rebadged). I'd not say - go and build this as an extension on mobile; but if you have the c
952.
by ddalex 8y ago
However they are pushing the boundaries in terms of cost per pound to LEO, in terms of reusability, and in terms of scale (what classic system launches with 27 engines firing!?!). So while you may not like it, they do all of what they claim
953.
by ddalex 8y ago
So the actual problem is that it seems to you you that one can't SELL a product as a browser extension. However Grammarly is a beautiful showcase of an actual product as an extension, with payment and everything you need (landing, test
954.
by ddalex 8y ago
Mate, not everything in the world moves as fast as the Javascript ecosystem. There are some hard laws at hand, called physics, that limit what you can lit under a rocket and get propulsion. Oxygen needs to be there. A combustible needs to b
955.
by ddalex 8y ago
I think there is at least one variant of the OAuth2 flow that doesn't require the use of servers to complete the authorization. I know Implicit Grant is broken in some ways, but Google supports it: https://developers.google.
956.
by ddalex 8y ago
Thanks for the pointers. I understand well how the OAuth scopes work. What I don't understand is - if the server doesn't handle my email, why does this need to be hosted on a server? Package it as a browser extension and this way
957.
by ddalex 8y ago
The better question here is: how many websites (with their own servers!) did you give full access to your email inbox? I didn't give it out to anybody else that Google. Google I trust implicitly because they host the server, so the ema
958.
by ddalex 8y ago
I had excellent experience with Sentry ( https://sentry.io/welcome/ ) to capture errors that happen on the client side in production. You need to be careful with the sensitive data that gets sent to Sentry, but it's
959.
by ddalex 8y ago
I tried to test it, but I literally don't feel comfortable giving somebody full access to my email. I don't know your practices, security protocols, etc. I'd feel way more comfortable if this would be an app or a browser add-
960.
by ddalex 8y ago
My point is that even if you look at the URL bar currently and it says company.com, you don't know what you're connecting to. Probably you're connecting to CloudFlare/CloudFront/Akamai/Fastly/any other CDN

More ›