ruthmarx

35 ms·

421.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Assuming arguendo that apple did want to do that kind of messing with DNS though - what's there to stop them from changing getaddrinfo() in the same way? Nothing, I already acknowledge they have the power to do rootkity things if
422.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> A 200 dollar computer at best is going to let you play low demand indie games and things with garbage mode settings for running on potatoes. That's not true. I still regularly use an old Dell Latitude from almost 15 years ago som
423.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Not taking the piss, it's my genuine position after seeing this discussions on HN for years. > It's about a _GENERAL_ data protection act that prevents companies and jobsworths having free rein to your personal data. The contex
424.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> That’s absurd. It's hardly absurd, it's a common pattern in nations and online rhetoric. > By that logic Europeans would also have defended Chat Control, but that wasn’t the case. Just because people may defend one thing o
425.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
The concern isn't that Apple controls the OS and so could do nefarious rootkit type stuff, but rather they may try to nanny through the framework they prefer and push for all apps for their platform to be developed in.
426.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> If you were writing a Java application, would you do your own DNS resolution, Java isn't known to nanny the users of apps developed in it's language. It's never even tried IMO. > If the threat model you’re coding for
427.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
That's not a light pattern, that's giving up the activity entirely. If an activity is explicitly legal, even with regulations, then there should be a light pattern for that activity is there is a dark pattern. Look at selling ciga
428.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
You don't have to reply to every comment I make in reply to someone else in this thread, just FYI. > Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell
429.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> There’s a split between people blaming the business and blaming the EU. I mainly just see Europeans defending it as not the EU, and I see that as patriotism and not an argument from merit. I have to see it that way because blaming the
430.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Sure, hence the popups mandated by EU regulation.
431.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> It is baffling that you can make that claim without realising your mistake. I'm not making any mistake. You continue to make the mistake to blame the businesses doing *legal* activities and complying with the *EU Regulation* that
432.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> so it's a moot point and needless paranoia. No it's not. You are misunderstanding my point. I'm not talking about Apple being able to patch the OS and control everything at that level - of course they can, but it seems
433.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> I don’t know if you are trolling or so misinformed Neither, you just somehow misinterpreted my comment. > The UK and EU do limit those activities. They remain entirely legal providing you get explicit opt-in consent. The point is th
434.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
What would the 'light' pattern be in this case, where the business wants to comply with regulation and maximize profit?
435.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> No, the best way to do it is not invade people’s privacy. You can have ads without targeting You are deliberately missing the point and shifting the goalposts. You're talking about asking a business voluntarily not engage in lucra
436.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
The argument is that if enough people do it it's causes them to lose some amount of money and maybe even lose customers.
437.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Not easily and often not completely.
438.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Worse, people (including on HN) actively blaming the EU for it. The EU is exactly to blame for it. The activity isn't illegal, and the EU didn't make it illegal. What the *EU did* was make it so that companies engaging in tha
439.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Maybe stop doing stupid shit that will legally require you to inform users that you're about to sell/share everything you know about them to 3rd parties? Why? It's legal and extremely lucrative. If it's really an is
440.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
It also means if you do it the 'Apple' way they might choose to intercept or modify responses. That seem in line with Apple's practices as a company even if they are not doing it yet. I feel anything they might do like that m
441.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Apple does not want you to do any resolving yourself Which honestly sounds like a good reason to make sure you do do it yourself.
442.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Interesting, thanks for the info and link. So what, it would be basically impossible to get a distributor to take books from a new publishing company? Or is it that they could be convinced to do so but likely if the new publishing company m
443.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
I have several books I want to write - I'm definitely bursting with idea, intent and motivation, and not just idea as a concept, but rather fully fleshed out. The hardest part is fighting ADHD or whatever and actually doing the work. T
444.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Because there's no problem to fix?
445.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Thank you muchly for your reply, it's very informative and I greatly appreciate it!
446.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
For sure, it's a must on any Windows after 7. I don't really consider it a separate shell though since it only changes the start menu and task bar, and is basically identical to previous versions of the official versions.
447.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Statement is correct. No, it wasn't, and please admit that. You claimed law enforcement traced the attacker through Monero. They didn't. They couldn't. They traced him through Binance.
448.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
What's stopping anyone from using a front from a Windows 95 install? How would what you say apply?
449.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Isn't that a large part of what makes Ubuntu Ubuntu?
450.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> If your goal truly is to stop people putting laptops on there, then account for people who may not follow the directions if they don’t know why. Why? If they decide to ignore the sign, and they fuck their laptops up, that's on the

More ›