feanaro

19 ms·

181.
by feanaro 4y ago
Yeah, that surely wouldn't grind everything to a halt and effectively make the existence of non-megacorporations impossible. No, what should instead be done is prevent the existence of these megacorporations which have disproportionate
182.
by feanaro 4y ago
Makes you wonder whether all of this makes any sense, since the end result isn't humanity ending up with great tools to assist human lives, but a select few with capital getting even more capital, to the detriment of the former goal.
183.
by feanaro 4y ago
There's quite a lot of legroom between a moderate amount of vertical integration where you attempt to own key parts of your supply chain and being a megacorporation which owns absolutely every piece of your stack, including towns for y
184.
by feanaro 4y ago
Why? I'd argue a world in which succeed to make vertical integration minimal would be a better one, with less manipulation and corporations vying to become states.
185.
by feanaro 4y ago
I agree with the above. I guess I interpreted the comment as saying some code parts of Brave are not open for security reasons. I don't actually know whether this is true or not.
186.
by feanaro 4y ago
> Most of Brave is developed in the open. Where it isn't, there are good reasons why such as for example security. I don't think you can muster a good security reason for not developing something in the open.
187.
by feanaro 4y ago
> In the physical world one can't dump a rusty aircraft carrier on someone else's lawn and get away with it. Should be the same in tech. Google's search results are most definitely not your lawn, nor are heavy websites v
188.
by feanaro 4y ago
> There's no reasonable way to reverse this action. How about "oh, everyone says we are wrong click to unban "?
189.
by feanaro 4y ago
I don't think we need this that bad so as to jeopardize our privacy and freedom over it. So I'll pass on this idea.
190.
by feanaro 4y ago
> Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them? Sorry, but this is completel
191.
by feanaro 4y ago
It was only a "mistake" if the word is stripped of its normal meaning since it was inevitable. It may lead to our downfall, but it was then an inevitable downfall. That said, it's not at all obvious that this is the case yet.
192.
by feanaro 4y ago
What are the practical scenarios where you need this that would require the introduction of overengineered, Orwellian, crippled computers described above, while at the same time not being solvable by other more realistic means?
193.
by feanaro 4y ago
Anti-money laundering laws aren't really viable in the end game, as will eventually be proven.
194.
by feanaro 4y ago
The solution you propose sounds vastly overengineered. Why would we need remote attestation, tampering resistance and enclaves when this is simply a problem of your peers being unauthenticated? If you care about the identity of who you are
195.
by feanaro 4y ago
But if it's the visual part of UX, then surely any UI issue is also a UX issue.
196.
by feanaro 4y ago
Looks pretty sweet! I'd consider using something like that for scripting if it had a non-toy implementation.
197.
by feanaro 4y ago
Your language feels Haskellish, with some Rust-like syntax and mutation thrown in. Were those languages inspiration?
198.
by feanaro 4y ago
> We're headed towards a word where data gets put in a blender to decide what to try next. That entire pipeline can and will be automated. I personally consider this to be lazy and dangerous thinking. I agree that something like thi
199.
by feanaro 4y ago
I'm on Firefox mobile and was confused what everyone was talking about until I saw this subthread. Very anticompetitive indeed.
200.
by feanaro 4y ago
Oh, I somehow managed to understand those two paragraphs as two separate observations. Sorry. Yes, the key can leak and there's no forward secrecy in this scheme. That's a valid point.
201.
by feanaro 4y ago
> AES is in that range for the short term. Not over months or years. Why do you say so?
202.
by feanaro 4y ago
Maybe in the short term, but I'm talking about a somewhat longer time frame where the entire world will realize exponential growth is no more. Eventually there will be no more upselling because there will be no one left to buy it.
203.
by feanaro 4y ago
Well, do you prefer services over inspectable code you can run yourself? I don't. In fact, I strongly dislike having to rely on services.
204.
by feanaro 4y ago
Or just not wanting to live in a surveillance-first, service-first world.
205.
by feanaro 4y ago
There's certainly a way to consider classes as types coherently, with added subtyping. In this view, interfaces are collections of types. That is, they correspond most closely to type classes .
206.
by feanaro 4y ago
I'm not sure that's a better justification. It's definitely an additional justification, making the whole thing that much worse. But street-level geolocation is pretty bad in itself.
207.
by feanaro 4y ago
What happens is that you'll have to use less stuff and learn to be content with it. What this means for the endless, exponential "consumer" ideology is that it isn't sustainable in the long run. This should be blindingly
208.
by feanaro 4y ago
Did you ignore the OP's long tail mention on purpose? It may very well be not the majority wants, so we cannot be talking about wishes of any singular "people". And for this reason, this strategy may no be suitable for "
209.
by feanaro 4y ago
> [...] which is, I think, very similar to how we don't really have control over a great many of things. This is a very handwavey sentence and is doing far too much work in your reasoning. Yes, you don't have control "over
210.
by feanaro 4y ago
To quote you: > The "you" that boots the device are in control, and the "you" that uses the device after that have exactly what "you" set up at boot time, neither more nor less. If both "you" are t

More ›