lxgr

29 ms·

781.
by lxgr 7mo ago
> From what I understand you can have secure chats e2ee ? Not with bots, though. > I like that I can login from multiple devices and continue the conversation This is also not possible with Telegram E2E, while it is with Signal and Wh
782.
by lxgr 7mo ago
They used to, but that hasn't been true for a few years now. Now it uses the Signal protocol's native multi-device capabilities, specifically in the "key per device" variant (unlike signal itself, which uses "key pe
783.
by lxgr 7mo ago
If you’re considering beam widths on top of physical space alone it gets a bit trickier (at least for radio as opposed to light/lasers), but yes, there is a lot of space in LEO.
784.
by lxgr 7mo ago
What are you talking about? WhatsApp, iMessage, and Signal all have multi-device support and are E2E encrypted, just to name a few very popular options.
785.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Seems like the fake app has been on there for over a month. Bizarre.
786.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Interesting, I was expecting Apple to eventually buy them. Still, makes sense to me: The aging Globalstar satellite constellation itself is probably not very interesting to Amazon, but their global L-band and S-band spectrum is, as are thei
787.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Because I expect my browser to work for me instead of having memorize workarounds for the new web annoyance of the day. Clicking "back", noticing that the site broke it, moving the mouse and long-pressing "back" (I norma
788.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Or somebody will put a lid on the pot.
789.
by lxgr 7mo ago
They call it "audio-visual". From the page you linked: > [...] services in sectors currently fully excluded such as transport and audio-visual
790.
by lxgr 7mo ago
> if it interferes with my ability to sell products and services in spain because my website gets blocked as a side-effect, then yes, the EU should care. As long as you’re not disadvantaged compared to a Spanish seller of goods or servic
791.
by lxgr 7mo ago
I have no idea if the bias is strong enough to profitably trade on it (or whether it even exists). But your statement seems stronger, i.e. that such a strategy is somehow fundamentally and inherently impossible, so I think it's on you
792.
by lxgr 7mo ago
The math here isn't what you assume it is. It isn't "most markets resolve to no"; it's "markets consistently value 'yes' too highly", and there is some evidence for the latter.
793.
by lxgr 7mo ago
If there's a consistent, sufficiently strong bias towards "yes" and you have enough capital, it doesn't matter as long as you size your bets right and you're able to survive a few train collisions.
794.
by lxgr 7mo ago
In which browser? Doesn't work in Firefox, unfortunately.
795.
by lxgr 7mo ago
There's also a replace() method, and trying to limit that to only same origin or already visited URLs seems futile, as the pages hosted there can themselves detect that the user is navigating back and can just forward you in a number o
796.
by lxgr 7mo ago
These are impossible to press with just one hand (or the bottom of my coffee cup in a pinch), though.
797.
by lxgr 7mo ago
> From the browsers perspective those are the same thing though. If the browser only allows adding at most one history item per click, I should be able to go back to where I entered a given site with at most that many back button clicks.
798.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Isn't this a heuristic implemented by browsers already these days?
799.
by lxgr 7mo ago
TIL that this (or rather, the lack of this) is why some pages show that annoying "do you want to resubmit your post" notification, but not others, and the name for it. Thank you!
800.
by lxgr 7mo ago
That restriction would both be trivial to circumvent by malicious advertisers and annoying for many legitimate web concepts.
801.
by lxgr 7mo ago
> clicking back on a slide-show bringing you to the overview page That behavior is expected in exactly one case (assuming slides, not the whole presentation, are modeled as a page each): If I navigated to that specific slide from the ove
802.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Why on Earth would the user be expected to implement a fix for a problem they didn't cause themselves in the first place?
803.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Not for most phones, fortunately.
804.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Not GGP, but I suppose the general idea is: Granting permanent location permission to maps.google.com seems a bit more privacy preserving than granting it to *.google.com, assuming one opens maps significantly less often than e.g. GMail, se
805.
by lxgr 7mo ago
iOS allows this, but only on mobile data , which is pretty infuriating. Why should I not be able to also restrict apps from dialing home/anywhere just because I'm on a Wi-Fi network (which isn't even necessarily unmetered)?
806.
by lxgr 7mo ago
100% agreed; people generally don't realize how deanonymizing EXIF data can be. I remember one of my cameras or phones including a "seconds since device startup" counter; together with the exact time the photo was taken, this
807.
by lxgr 7mo ago
Not on a free app, and I don't think Apple should be coerced to host content for free and cross-subsidize it from other paid content.
808.
by lxgr 7mo ago
> That and I don’t see how Google and Apple can both be monopolies in mobile. Why not? Monopolies can be market-specific, and Apple does indeed fully control the market of iOS app distribution. Whether they also are a monopolist on mobil
809.
by lxgr 7mo ago
That’s fine by me: Not everything needs to be about money. > Anyways competition is good. I agree, and I have no issue with competition paid or free, but I’d have hoped that the paid one would at least also offer a better product. I’m al
810.
by lxgr 7mo ago
What do you mean? It's already in the core and gradually reaches us through the crust. What's your point/distinction here, exactly?

More ›