gcp

34 ms·

271.
by gcp 9y ago
They aren't giving out money, they're giving out a free service (GA). If they gave out money at least that could be used to set up a replacement :-)
272.
by gcp 9y ago
Nah, as is evident by the amount of Firefox users that still have Google as their search engine. It's a false equivalence. There is a difference between trusting Google not to abuse data they legally guaranteed not to abuse (Firefox),
273.
by gcp 9y ago
This is probably a better page, as the original one linked is indeed for sending data to Mozilla. This one also talks about "service providers": https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ Though
274.
by gcp 9y ago
Firstly, it's not entirely clear how big this subset is, and not implementing known parts of it for sure breaks the web. What's the status of blocking third-party cookies again? ( cries )
275.
by gcp 9y ago
The problem here is that GA is quite frankly Telemetry For Websites. Frankly, Mozilla are shooting themselves in the foot by sending any data from any of their products or web properties to their primary competitor. This ship sailed a lon
276.
by gcp 9y ago
Sounds like a bug to be filed. I'd encourage people to try the webext versions of those add-ons so we can catch things like this in time for 57.
277.
by gcp 9y ago
I’d argue the root cause is more that Mozilla is willing to trade away privacy for developer convenience. Oh, not arguing that. Even with Google out of the picture entirely, Telemetry is a nice example. But I'd argue it is needed to
278.
by gcp 9y ago
Sending these requests with TP enabled (i.e. in private browsing) is a plain bug as far as I'm concerned.
279.
by gcp 9y ago
Yeah, I don't disagree. The increasing usage of web pages in the browser UI has made this problematic and is what caused the root problem here in the first place.
280.
by gcp 9y ago
1) This bug is INVALID. Several people tried to reproduce it and failed. 2) The indicated cookie (from bug 1026538) is a cookie sandboxed for privacy reasons and NOT your real Google cookie. It broke the cookie manager exactly because
281.
by gcp 9y ago
The Privacy Policy seems to only cover '"personal information" means information which identifies you, like your name or email address."' So it's not surprising it doesn't mention GA. The Firefox privacy p
282.
by gcp 9y ago
"performance, broad compatibility with websites" These are things which are greatly helped by having good analytics (Telemetry for the browser, analytics on your sites). You have to realize that to some extent these goals aren&#x2
283.
by gcp 9y ago
From the linked bug, it sounds like the data is silo-ed and no user opt-out is needed.
284.
by gcp 9y ago
IMHO this should be blocked by Tracking Protection.
285.
by gcp 9y ago
It has some subsidiaries, AFAIK. I don't know how the legals work there. I was going to say Google does the same, but an actual clean profile shows that Google.com shows a banner "A privacy reminder from Google" on first use.
286.
by gcp 9y ago
AFAIK almost no US based website does this, even if they are using GA. As a European this is annoying, but one has to ask itself the question if Mozilla should willfully disadvantage itself here.
287.
by gcp 9y ago
Can't the router reply to the DNS request itself with 192.168.1.1? The public DNS record is needed to verify the DV cert, not to do the actual lookup.
288.
by gcp 9y ago
The manufacturer can set up a public DNS entry I think. i.e. it'd be config.linksys.com and that'd point to 192.168.1.1, but have a certificate that matches the one on the router.
289.
by gcp 9y ago
The DV business is dead but there will be a marketing push towards EV certs for business. Symantec's problems are that they fucked up too much and have slipped past the "too big to fail" boundary.
290.
by gcp 9y ago
It's not just Schaeffer. The research department has a huge and deep history of AI in games (GAMES group). https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/University+of+Albert... The principal author of AlphaGo did postdoc wor
291.
by gcp 9y ago
SSE performance is comparable, so is 128-bit AVX. 256-bit AVX is in theory half as fast. Despite this, apparently Ryzen beats Kaby Labe on SPECfp, so theorethical max throughput is only part of the story. It does not help that Intel needs t
292.
by gcp 9y ago
SROA'ed What does this mean? (Glad you're enjoying your time at Google, Justin!)
293.
by gcp 9y ago
the author happily used BSF and BTC in the hottest part of the loop... which are actually rather slow instructions Depends on the hardware you're running on. They used to be very fast on Intel machines. (There's an argument here
294.
by gcp 9y ago
I don't think native toolkits (well, major ones that gain adoption) are coming out much in the C++ space. I really only know the ones I mentioned!
295.
by gcp 9y ago
The tokens only have value because people speculate on them This is a bit weirdly stated for this case, I believe. The Brave tokens have value because they offer advertising space in the browser. You're speculating on the value of th
296.
by gcp 9y ago
I thought the entire point of Brave was to have ads, but share the revenue.
297.
by gcp 9y ago
Presumably, if you're using the composition, it's hardened against the length-extension attack in the first place, right? I mean the advantage seems to only be there when you're cobbling together your own constructions, i.e.
298.
by gcp 9y ago
But aren't we trying to get away from MACs into authenticated ciphers?
299.
by gcp 9y ago
If only this argument had worked for Mozilla.
300.
by gcp 9y ago
If Brave becomes popular, advertising space in it is worth real money, and the tokens get value. If.

More ›