figgyc

Thus is quite interesting IMO, the fact that it will work on apparently all devices with no version limit will probably be a surprise to many.

I suspect, given the fact that ADB can bypass the requirement, that Google is using the pre-existing Android mechanism to gatekeep app installs which is currently used for Google Play Protect. The Advanced Protection variant of this removes the "Install anyway" option [1] which is quite irritating, either you have to install every new F-Droid apps from ADB or disable Advanced Protection which I ended up doing.

(I wonder if Shizuku can be used to install apps without a PC? Haven't tried myself)

[1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/9764949?hl=en

I've had this a few times on Android (eg the new Subway app). I'm 99% sure it's the latter but not for security, just a fancy splash screen animation that was implemented as a video without thinking about setting it as "no audio".

I think it's just a grammar thing, meant to read "having a landing page and no product, but collecting emails like you do [have a product]" - so not the parent being disingenuous but the general practice.

I think you've linked the wrong "Block Site" extension, at least I couldn't find regex blocking or redirecting in that one, but this one has it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/block-website...

If the data is as they say sent via http then surely they can show a sample request with what data is _actually_ sent from the device instead of the list of what Qualcomm says might be sent (which was probably drafted by CYA lawyers instead of engineering)?

A little bit of googling suggests that particular snap is a Wine wrapper: https://github.com/mmtrt/acrordrdc/blob/master/snap/snapcraf...

Is that code the same as the one the other commenter linked? Not sure, doesn't seem to be a way to tell, as you've mentioned. (That was quite a surprise to me, even Flatpak's Flathub has a little "see details" link to GitHub.) But it would make sense as Adobe has indeed not maintained Acrobat for Linux in many years.

Am I the only one who sees Revue, Substack etc. as a niche market? I can see why it appeals to Silicon Valley types/HN readers; after all this website is a content aggregator so it makes sense we all have a shared interest in written work. That said I think that the blog "industry" is dying more than it is growing.

To me, media seems to be trending towards quick, consumable, visually stimulating content, ie YouTube, TikTok and the like. The reason such content is more engaging and profitable is because it's a lot easier to turn it into a feed: one does not scroll through a newsletter for hours on end, and long form content tends to be the type that you put more thought into reading instead of simply moving on to the next piece.

Advertising runs on eyeballs but subscriptions do not, and it feels to me like Twitter seem to think that creating a well integrated platform to drive more Twitter discussion is a good idea, but really to me it feels like blogs and Tweets run perpendicular to each other: anyone who's read a decent amount of Twitter conversation knows that deeply thought out and sensible it is not.

Maybe they see being able to be "in" conversations about paywalled content will incentivize people to pay up, and will subsequently start pushing Revue content on people's feeds to try and create such a mentality? Or maybe Twitter don't care about making Revue "part of" Twitter and just think it's a growing market worth capitalising on. Only time will tell.

In a way it sort of reminds me of podcasts. They work well only for a group of people who have the time to consume long content, and while it works as a large niche, I can't see it growing into a Twitter-scale mass market, so I wouldn't trust it to be around for a particularly long time.

I think one thing overlooked is that Google's supposed rationale for providing this service is effectively because they suppose that their plans to "more aggressively block fingerprinting" will leave advertisers with no other choice.

Personally I find this highly unlikely. The very nature of fingerprinting makes it difficult to prevent without some pretty severe compromises, and it wouldn't surprise me if advertisers enter an arms race with Google instead of caving in.

Of course the economic strategy for Google to avoid that is to reduce the price/limits of this service to so low that this isn't worth doing, but if the effort Google puts into preventing fingerprinting is insufficent then this would lead to a "worst of both worlds" situation - Google gets to pseudonymously track the internet with their "privacy sandbox", and nefarious trackers/advertisers can combine that with fingerprinting to create an even more reliable picture of who's who on the Internet.

FYI, this[0] appears to be the explainer of what Privacy Sandbox actually is, and it's quite vague, presumably because the actual implementation details of this would be difficult to determine.

[0] https://github.com/michaelkleber/privacy-model

We continue to expand our merchant base around the world. The number of merchants on our platform in North America, Europe, and Latin America has grown approximately 234% since 2019. In particular, the number of merchants on our platform in the United States has grown approximately 268% since 2019. Through our diversified and global merchant base, we are able to offer greater depth and breadth of categories and products. For example, in 2019, four out of the top 10 selling merchants on our platform were located in the United States selling refurbished electronics, beauty products, and hobby items, which illustrates the ongoing diversification of our merchant base and product categories.

This feels like probably more of a symptom that the Chinese merchant base is probably a bigger amount of smaller shops whereas these US shops (who still only take a minority of the top 10, which is a largely useless metric anyway considering it is unlikely that even 10 large merchants make up a small proportion of sales) are probably part of a smaller volume but are more successful simply because there is less US sellers so there is less competition especially in categories like hobby which are harder for China to serve (I mean think about it, could you name a seller on Wish? It doesn't feel like the opportunity is marketed much). Also the 268% non-China growth metric doesn't really mean much without context and while I do think that Wish is probably succeeding in expanding their merchant base I do feel like their dependence on China is a lot larger then they would like to admit, and even under Joe Biden I doubt that world pressure on China will ease any time soon so Wish may have an unstable future ahead.

The file browser on the left and the general design of it makes me lean towards the author intending this to replace VS Code and other modeless, less keyboard focused editors, not regular Emacs, which I can see the value in because Emacs being written in C and Lisp is probably a lot more performant and lean, plus a lot of people are opposed to Electron apps in general.

This is a bit cynical of me but I thought it was interesting: In the PDF their legal says this: > in the years since, Fortnite has topped 350 million players and has become a global cultutral phenomenon. Interestingly, this 350 million players number appears to have been announced back in May [0]. Of course it is somewhat likely that their legal team just Googled this number instead of sourcing an updated figure from Epic, but could it potentially be that Fortnite's growth has stagnated? It definitely feels as though it has left the zeitgeist compared to years gone by, and it could be that Epic has calculated that the payoff of this suit could exceed the amount of V-Bucks they were expecting to sell through the iOS version of Fortnite. Certainly a big gamble, but it's possible that the situation may be dire enough to make it worth it. Of course they attempt to make it look like this isn't what they want by not demanding a cash payoff, but the obvious play is that if they win then a) they will be able to sell V-Bucks again for presumably a higher margin, and b) they will launch their own Epic app/game store and take a small cut of those transactions.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-mill...

People in this thread discuss what Nvidia would do with ARM after they buy it, but I'm honestly not even sure if anyone even could buy ARM to be honest. The article barely even mentions the anti-competitive nightmare that it would probably become, and if Nvidia agreed to let everyone else keep buying licenses and designs as it is now, then you have to argue is there any reason for them to buy ARM at all?

I mean usually people tend to send a message or email alongside sharing files with people so I doubt it would be much of a loss.

It surprises me that it's taken so long for someone to actually recompile some open source benchmark like sysbench or Blender and run it natively on ARM. If theyve already broken the agreement by running Geekbench then I can't see why not to take it further. That being said comparative numbers aren't readily available afaik but it wouldn't be that difficult to get them.

Memberful was indeed an acquisition: https://memberful.com/blog/joining-patreon/

Apple and Google could force otherwise if they just ban the app from their stores. Especially considering that they seem to be using some questionable workarounds to run in the background on iOS, they could chalk it down to policy, but it probably wouldn't be in their best interests since "Apple blocks NHS from releasing contact tracing app" would not be a good headline.

Perhaps they could limit refunded products to 3 star or below? Really there isn't a good reason to positively review something and take it back, if it was your fault eg if it didn't fit, then you could just not review it.

I'm inclined to agree because of one contradiction in the issue: they say they got an email when they were banned but then they say they can't access their Gmail to provide proof because they were banned. Either your account stays unbanned for a few minutes so your Gmail can sync in which case it should still be available offline, it's on another email which they can still access, or they're lying.

Really what needs to happen is that the UPU in general needs to be redefined. The Chinese sellers can still access Europe, Canada, and basically anywhere else, which isn't going to stop especially since most countries are not as aggressive as the US when it comes to China trade. Hopefully the reduction in sales due to the US leaving the UPU kills off a bunch of the Chinese businesses but it is definitely still going to be a problem elsewhere.

Have you confirmed this? In the example the ID is retrieved from the finished upload response, but on the actual YouTube website does tell you the video link with the ID in advance, and the API parameter 'part' does appear to allow you to get the ID.

Just a guess but I assume this was done by starting an upload with the API which gave the guy the ID but then not streaming the actual video file until it was recorded. Looking at an example of the API in use ( https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/docs/videos/insert#... ) that certainly seems plausible although I would imagine that there would be a timeout making it difficult.

edit: after looking at the other guy mentioning the time machine reference, my theory would be that he just spammed this API until he got a plausible URL and only then recorded and uploaded the video, probably would take a while but not forever considering how loose the URL actually is to delorean

I think he means the main display and main cpu