jhasse

42 ms·

481.
by jhasse 8y ago
Nah, they rather implement a file sharing website.
482.
by jhasse 8y ago
Ctrl+Home also works (Windows and Linux).
483.
by jhasse 8y ago
> The only option for users is to leave their ecosystem and lose access to all of their purchases. The user signed up for that, so IMHO he gets what he deserves. The only I think I would change is to disallow the use of the word "pu
484.
by jhasse 8y ago
> I am talking about the actual definition of a monopoly, not that defined by antitrust laws, hence my second sentence about how the law (consumer law, anti-trust, or both) needs to change to prevent these walled gardens. I didn't m
485.
by jhasse 8y ago
> Apple has an absolute monopoly on its own platform. It doesn't work that way. Otherwise I could also say that any company has a monopoly on "products with the company's name on it". > the reality is that anti-com
486.
by jhasse 8y ago
Do you have an example for a case where the EU fined a company for anti-competitive behaviour where the company did NOT control a majority of the relevant market?
487.
by jhasse 8y ago
Sure, by why should the profit matter when we want to determine what is a monopoly and what isn't? Consumers have a choice, no matter what Apple makes.
488.
by jhasse 8y ago
I would say that a "substantial share" is not a "dominant market position".
489.
by jhasse 8y ago
1. "in the US" 2. 47% is not a monopoly
490.
by jhasse 8y ago
> Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple doesn't. It's as simple as that.
491.
by jhasse 8y ago
That's true. I guess we need something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_Certificat... for email then. I'm not sure how PGP would help though, as the user also has to check, if the email
492.
by jhasse 8y ago
Your new domain will look suspicious to any bigger spam filter (e.g. Gmail's) and therefore you have to be really careful with the content of your email so that it gets through. But I agree that this is rather intransparent for the use
493.
by jhasse 8y ago
You mean like DKIM? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
494.
by jhasse 8y ago
And if example.com is a decent email provider, this also proves that it was sent by john, because otherwise the SMTP server wouldn't sign the outgoing email with a wrong login.
495.
by jhasse 8y ago
I don't see how this would be different with PGP.
496.
by jhasse 8y ago
> What it lacks is the ability to show warnings such as “this email wasn’t signed, do you want to trust it?” and “this signature isn’t recognized, yikes!” Such a warning already exists: https://lifehacker.com/stop-looking
497.
by jhasse 8y ago
Well that UX somehow exists: If DKIM fails, the changes are high the email will be classified as spam or possible phishing.
498.
by jhasse 8y ago
Sure, but the SMTP server won't sign the email if it was sent with the wrong login. So unless I don't trust the whole domain (in which case even PGP could result in a false sense of security), this pretty much verifies the sender.
499.
by jhasse 8y ago
But HTTPS equivalent for email would be DKIM, not PGP.
500.
by jhasse 8y ago
Sure, but why would the SMTP server sign an email with the wrong login?
501.
by jhasse 8y ago
> and I can do the same thing with an email. This wouldn't pass most spam filters today, thanks to stuff like DKIM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
502.
by jhasse 8y ago
It already could using DKIM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
503.
by jhasse 8y ago
With HEVC 2.5GB is perfectly fine for a 2 hour movie.
504.
by jhasse 8y ago
Facebook will just break the law. Now what? You can't destroy a company just because it breaks laws, because jobs!!!!!1 (c.f. Microsoft, Intel, Google, Volkswagen, etc.)
505.
by jhasse 8y ago
Why is the OS still hostile when using an AOSP based ROM?
506.
by jhasse 8y ago
And you're probably right. "Open-source-ness" shouldn't be the only measure when valuing software.
507.
by jhasse 8y ago
> But by that measure safari is open source because WebKit is open source. There's a lot more closed source code in Safari than there's in Chrome. But sure: Why not give them credit for open-sourcing WebKit? Safari is closer to
508.
by jhasse 8y ago
Probably because WebKit was easier to patch.
509.
by jhasse 8y ago
They are though. There are no Edge forks or free iOS distributions.
510.
by jhasse 8y ago
Mine only contains "X11; Fedora; Linux".

More ›