HN user
The parent comment is talking about distractions, not ads. YouTube has plenty of those, even embedded YouTube videos, unless you pause the video before it ends. uBlock Origin Lite cannot block elements except through packaged rulesets, and while there are some ad-blocker lists that are meant to block annoyances on pages in addition to ads, everybody has a different idea on what is an annoyance on a webpage.
KeePass supports TOTP out of the box without any plugins since the 2.47 release in January 2021: https://keepass.info/news/n210109_2.47.html
Sometimes it's necessary, when the protocol itself is updated, e.g. the multi-device beta page currently says "Messaging or calling someone who is using a very old version of WhatsApp on their phone won't work from your linked device."[1] for this reason. If they don't force those users to upgrade at some point, it would lead to an undesirable situation where you are not guaranteed to be able to message someone from desktop. My experience with my grandmother's phone confirms gnicholas's account that they do this very rarely.
But, more importantly for gnicholas's point, Whatsapp gives you a warning days/weeks ahead about the need to update the app. My grandmother is almost never connected to a Wi-Fi network, so her apps don't usually update, and she hardly uses any app other than Whatsapp anyway. She got the warning one time and gave me a call immediately, so I walked her through about what to do (i.e. yes grandma, click the update button). If it silently fails, like gnicholas says, and if this happens often, then I can't imagine using Signal with her.
[1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/download-and-installation/a...
I use PotPlayer, which can show two subtitles at once; also, when you click on a word, it can search it in the search engine of your choice (e.g. a dictionary). You can also add multiple search engines (as well as "Copy to clipboard" command) accessible when you right click a word instead of left clicking. You can also assign a shortcut (e.g. Ctrl+C) to copy the whole subtitle visible on the screen, to paste in Google Translate etc. I use all of those features, and it significantly helped in my English learning in my teens (and later other languages).
Previously I used KMPlayer by the same developer, which supported not just two but three simultaneous subtitles (which I sometimes used, as strange as it may sound); but I switched to PotPlayer when he sold the program and it started to be bundled with ads.
Both programs are only available on Windows, and lack of something as featureful and customizable as PotPlayer was one of the reasons my brief flirtation with Linux at the start of this year wasn't that satisfactory. But if all you want is multiple subtitles, I found SMPlayer on Linux that did the job; but the features of PotPlayer/KMPlayer is simply unmatched (beyond just language learning).
While I am happy that Notepad++ added a dark mode, I am frustrated that Microsoft forced Notepad++ (and all Windows programs) to add hacky workarounds for a dark mode.
Notepad++ already obeys the Windows system colors, and I have been using it in dark mode by changing Windows colors. Microsoft, presumably to sabotage classical programs and to push modern UWP apps, no longer allows changing system colors. There is a Windows 10 Dark Mode instead, and all it does it notify programs about its configuration, so that they redraw all their colors. A vestige of customizable system colors that remains is the (ugly) High Contrast Mode (activated with Alt+Shift+PrtSc); but if one can put up with its ugliness, it works much better than the Windows 10 Dark Mode, changing the theme for all well-written Windows programs, including all versions of Notepad++.
With the UWP mostly dead, I was hoping that they would start caring about "legacy" programs, but nope. Notepad++, as well as many other programs I use and contribute, saw that Windows was not fixing this and started adding their own patchy dark modes, which often don't work that well. I tested the new Notepad++ dark mode, to see maybe I can start using Dark Mode instead of High Contrast Theme. Unsurprisingly, many places (settings, dropdowns etc.) remain with white backgrounds; it is difficult to change all backgrounds as it was written with obeying system colors in mind, rather than manual theming. High Contrast Theme, however, works perfectly. Presumably those remaining white patches will be fixed as Notepad++ has an active community, but dozens of other old Windows programs I use will probably never bother with explicitly adding a dark theme, so I guess I will have to stick with the High Contrast Mode.
The only cases that I can think of are me doing something stupid, like posting my password somewhere public by mistake (e.g. using KeePass password auto-typing on comment field instead of password field, or pasting it in a wrong place if I am copy-pasting), or a phishing attack where I foolishly insist on copy-pasting my password when it doesn't auto-type. But even in those cases, 2FA would indeed be of very limited help since:
1) In the first case, chances are that I would realize this immediately and change my password, which I would have time to do as there is no actual attacker yet; only future opportunistic attackers. 2FA would be useful only if I not only pasted my password and 2FA code, but then not even realized it. Then 2FA might help since by the time anybody notices this, the 2FA code would be invalid.
2) In the second case, if the phishing attack is not real-time (i.e. attackers are just recording my credentials instead of immediately logging in in my place), 2FA would help since the 2FA they stored would be invalid when they tried using it. 2FA is less helpful in a real-time phishing attack; though having 2FA might still help since changing my login credentials would presumably require another 2FA code so at least they can't lock me out (unless they can convince me that I need to enter another 2FA code, which I guess is possible if I was absent-minded enough to fall for it in the first place).
In any case, I don't worry much about these scenarios and I agree with you about 2FA, that's why I don't usually bother with it except in cases where websites freak out because I keep logging in from foreign IPs with no cookies. Then 2FA is useful because it makes the website trust my login, at no additional inconvenience to me as KeePass auto-types 2FA code just like my password, so I don't mind enabling it when I can.
you're back to 1 factor (your password manager master password)
That's only true if you are using an online service as a password manager, so the master password is the only thing protecting you. Not necessarily for offline password managers. E.g. in my case, I use Keepass that I never sync/store online, so even without enabling a website's 2FA, for many attack models I am effectively using 2FA: logging into the website requires both something I have (a device with my Keepass database) and something I know (the password for my Keepass database). But without website 2FA those two factors then produce one single factor (the website's password) that is transmitted to log in, so enabling website's 2FA and storing it in Keepass makes it 2FA against even more attack models, i.e. attacks where it's not my password database that it compromised, but just that one password. So it's still a benefit.
If I ever feel the need to sync my Keepass database, e.g. on Dropbox; I could set a key file (that I transferred offline between my devices) in addition to the master password to preserve this 2FA aspect, so that even if my Dropbox password and Keepass master password were both compromised, they would still be useless without access to my devices that contain the key file. But I never had the need to use my password manager on a different device, so no syncing needed so far. In any case, I don't actually care about 2FA (when I enable 2FA, I actually do it to decrease security, not increase it, as I explained in my other comment), this 2FA is just a bonus of my not needing and liking online services.
In my case, I actually enable 2FA mostly for convenience, rather than security. I often log in from different country IPs (VPN), I auto delete cookies, often use private mode, etc., so some websites are frequently suspicious about my login and ask me for an additional step to verify, e.g. by asking an additional question or sending an email with a verification code. There is usually no way to manually disable this additional check; nor do websites seem to learn that logging in from different IPs with no cookies is my usual behavior. Enabling 2FA makes websites have more trust in my login, so I get none of those additional verifications, with no additional inconvenience as 2FA stored in password manager and typed automatically just like the password. So in a way I enable 2FA in order to disable 2FA.
“Our goal is to make money, and not creating problems for society,”
It's a pretty big problem for society when hospitals, universities, and countless business have been ransomed.
Well, at least their "ethics" page does state that they will not attack "hospitals, hospices, schools, universities, non-profit organizations, or government agencies".
When you phrase it in a way that suggests the host's choice is itself random, people get it wrong.
In other words, they still get it right; they get it right for the separate question that that phrasing implies.
If the host's choice is random, so that when you initially picked wrong it's equally probable that the host open the door with the car and then say "sorry, looks like you lost" (which is what I assumed when I first heard this problem, not being familiar with the show), then even if the host happened to open the door with a goat and give you a chance to switch, it doesn't matter if you take it or not. People are correct that, for that question, the probabilities are one in two for both of the remaining doors.
I just dislike library software in general. I like files, I like keeping files neatly in folders and subfolders (and adding tags in filenames if necessary), so that I can easily use whatever software I like at the time on whatever platform to view or edit them, without ever being dependent on any. I organize all my movies, music, photos, documents, etc. this way, and I didn't want to hand over my ebooks to some software to keep it organized in its own way.
I don't even like it if a program scans my existing files to form a database without affecting them; but as long as it's not too in-my-face I guess I don't mind it so much; as I can get rid of the software and its database whenever I like, and I wouldn't notice anything was different. But Calibre decidedly takes the opposite approach, so, as the link says, I decided it's not for me. There are many parts of Calibre that I thought I might find useful, but it would be tiring to fight against a software that actively tries to work fundamentally differently than the way I like. (And I did try it, but using it felt almost as frustrating as using much of Apple software; it's an agony unless you use it exactly the way they want.) That's why I don't have Calibre installed on my computer even just for those useful parts; I just found other software to do things I like. Which is sad, because as an ebook user I really tried to like Calibre, and I really thought I would because I tend to love software that people criticize as "ugly/not modern" and "too cluttered/bloated". If only those things came with a package that didn't make it its "mission" to get me "to stop storing metadata in filenames and stop using the filesystem to find things".
See the map on page 7 (PDF page 9) of the GSMA report "Access to Mobile Services and Proof of Identity 2020": https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads...
To get counts, I also analyzed the table in the annex; it lists exactly 200 countries (checking each of them, that's because in addition to 193 UN members, it includes two non-member countries: Kosovo and Taiwan, and five other non-countries: French Guiana, Greenland, Hong Kong, Macao, Svalbard).
Of these, 34 are listed as "SIM registration not mandated" and further 7 are listed as "SIM registration under consideration", the rest are "SIM registration mandated", i.e. 159 countries.
Basically the whole world requires it except for North America/UK and a few smaller countries mostly in Europe. Also notable that countries without ID requirement mostly happen to be the ones with very low prepaid SIM penetration (see the map on page 6 [page 8 of the PDF]) so their unidentified SIM usage is presumably low anyway, though it remains a possibility in those countries.
Edit: Sorry, 6 are listed as "State of SIM registration inconclusive" which I have missed, so "SIM registration mandated" count should be 153.
I find it interesting that ads are considered acceptable and commonplace in Android and to a slightly lesser extent iOS apps; but on desktop they are seen as almost malware.
To be clear, I also avoid it when I can, and most of the time ad-free or open-source alternatives are available (in this case I have been using WinSCP). I dislike the mobile app ecosystem with its plethora of garbage, privacy invading apps; and I am glad that desktop apps usually aren't like that. But if a program is much better than its alternatives and the ads are not too annoying, I guess I don't mind supporting its development via ads. Being a poor person from a poor country, I couldn't afford purchasing the program or donating to it, so ads sound like one way of supporting a program I like so much (though my ad views are probably worthless for the same reason).
The only adware program I actually have is PotPlayer (the only thing that comes close is KMPlayer, which I used before; but it's originally built by the same developer and added ads even earlier). I think a few other programs I use had adware-bundled installers (e.g. JDownloader, CDisplayEx,...) but I had found adware-free installers. Even in the case of PotPlayer, it doesn't show ads, just an empty window (maybe again because I am in a poor country?) so I blocked the empty "ads" via hosts file. What's the point of annoying myself if that's not even supporting the developer? But if PotPlayer actually showed ads to me; assuming it didn't upload my private data and no comparable open-source/ad-free program emerged, I feel like I should be fine with it rarely showing some ads in the corner.
His writing really reminded me of my high school bullies. I couldn't help but imagine him reciting these lines against me with a smirk in his face.
Just a passing remark would have been bad enough, but he devotes a significant percent of his article to it even though it is not even tangentially related to his point. He clearly just enjoys mocking it so much.
I am not talking about Germany at all, certainly not Germany of today. I think you missed that we are talking about a hypothetical future where a prospective dictator with overwhelming support is concentrating power. It already happened in my country; it's not happening in Germany and you correctly identified the reason ("It would see the most trusted state organ protecting the Basic Law."), not because of any entrenchment clause or even supposedly recursive entrenchment clause.
It could. But why explicitly write down things that are obvious anyway?
Maybe it's obvious to you; to me it's obvious the other way. Perhaps, when penning their supposed bulwark against dictatorship, they could afford to spend a few more drops of ink?
If the authors of such entrenched clauses really meant it the way you imply, they are doubly idiots, first for thinking that such legal technicalities would help prevent the slide into dictatorships, and then for failing to even do that and leave a loophole. I don't think they are idiots and they realized such an attempt would be futile and counterproductive. And focused their efforts elsewhere, to build a proper system with checks and balances so power would not be concentrated.
The idea that the eternity clause was deliberately made toothless in case we actually do want to abolish human rights, democracy and rule of law again is frankly absurd.
No dictator would bother with amending such toothless abstract parts anyway. They would simply claim they are the greatest champion of human rights, and that their abuses are actually not abuses at all. The parts that are worth changing are concrete, technical details; like how are the judges that decide whether those are abuses are appointed. And those parts that the dictator might want to modify, may also legitimately need to be modified in the future, so all constitutions leave the door open to that change, yes.
That constitutional amendment would simply be unconstitutional and thus invalid. Law is not code. If you violate its intent, you violate it.
Of course the prospective dictator would violate the constitution's intent, that's the point. Newly appointed judges would disagree with you about the amendment's constitutionality, though. As would the populace, who would just see unelected judges violating letter of the law to stop the people's will and protect the status quo.
Law is not code, it's what people in power interpret it to be. If a person or group manages to concentrate the power in practice, no legal technicalities help. I live in a country that recently went through that change; all the human rights, freedom of speech, rule of law clauses are there, all the supposed ostensible checks and balances are there, none of it is of any help. You can think in your head that it's not actually constitutional all you like, it's just that the judges, prosecutors, army, police, the censored media and most of the populace would disagree.
If that was how it was meant to be understood, it could have easily been written explicitly by making it a recursive clause. E.g. in the case of my country, article 4 of the constitution says that the first 3 articles cannot be changed; it could have said first 4 articles cannot be changed, thereby making it a legal impasse.
More likely, the authors of entrenched clauses understood that, if it came to that, making that change illegal wouldn't prevent a slip to dictatorship. That impasse would only hinder the honest actors, if in the future there came a time when those entrenched clauses really legitimately need to be changed; and hence that door was deliberately left open.
Sure, if it came to that, judges may still rule your way to slow down the slide the dictatorship, but then the next constitutional amendment would be "all judges are retired, here's how new judges are selected". Or some other legal maneuver. Even the strongest clauses could be circumvented if they have enough support or power, let alone feeble interpretations of implicit clauses.
The relevant blog post, that the article doesn't link to:
https://blog.whatsapp.com/more-information-about-our-update
Goes into slightly more detail then the article, and also takes obvious jabs at Telegram and Signal.
All that hassle so that you can save $10 a year.
You are talking as if KeePass's only advantage is being free and it is only preferred by people who cheapen out. That's not true, just as it's not true for similar arguments for Android vs iOS, or Linux vs Windows, or Windows vs MacOS. People have different preferences and priorities.
Even if the pricing was reversed, I am sure many people would prefer KeePass, as I do, just as in general preferring paid desktop programs to free online services.
something as useful and vital as a password manager
Indeed, even if one day I give in and start using those online services for everything, something as vital as a password manager would be one of the last places where I would cave in.
I understand that KeePass wasn't for you, and it probably isn't for heavy mobile users as it is primarily a desktop program (official KeePass client works on macOS and Linux by the way, though it feels more at home in Windows). I am sure you could find excellent mobile clients too (I wouldn't know as I never had the need), but I understand that lack of official clients and having to choose among non-official clients, some of whom might be buggy, can be frustrating. But it is perfect for my use case, and for my non-technical parents that I introduced it to, regardless of price.
Parler is its own platform and Element is just a client.
Indeed, people made that point, but I don't see how this is a useful distinction. Parler (the app) that Google and Apple removed is also just a client, that facilitates access to Parler (the social media website) that can be accessed via other means, e.g. a web browser. And Google and Apple didn't really have any problems with the app itself, which has no content on its own; they wanted different moderation policies on the website. As they have no direct control over the website, they acted against the client app; it was Amazon that took down the website.
One difference might be that Elements and Matrix have different developers and Parler (the app) and Parler (the social media website) have the same owner. But again, this is not a meaningful difference; e.g. if Google and Apple had problem with content on Reddit (the website), surely they would remove both Reddit (the app) and all 3rd party clients, Apollo, Boost, Sync, etc, at least those that fail to actively censor the objectionable parts of the website in the app.
So Apple/Google saw Parler (the website) as having dangerous content and took it out on Parler (the app). If they are justified in that; it is not a big stretch that they saw Matrix (protocol) as having dangerous content and took it out on Element (app), and presumably other clients. I don't think whether it is decentralized or not matters from an app store policy point of view.
Two companies having the say on which programs almost everyone can run on their mobile devices, especially on the iOS side, is a huge problem, that becomes increasingly evident as they start to flex their muscles.
If you're talking about this [1], it's written by Mozilla's CEO, not by one random who has access to blog on Mozilla.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
Two months ago, Microsoft announced the Pluton security processor and that future AMD, Intel, Qualcomm CPUs will have it. It seems to be for this exact purpose:
These sophisticated attack techniques target the communication channel between the CPU and TPM, which is typically a bus interface. (...) The Pluton design removes the potential for that communication channel to be attacked by building security directly into the CPU.
https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/11/17/meet-the-...
Not just Firefox, all programs in Windows 10 allow shift+click to jump. The only exceptions are new UWP style scrollbars (the ones that are affected by the "Automatically hide scrollbars in Windows" setting). Fortunately I don't use any of those, other than start menu and settings. Interestingly (as mentioned in the article) EdgeHTML based Edge is not one of them, scrollbar is always visible regardless, and shift+click works.
There's also https://news.ycombinator.com/best as an alternative for a similar purpose. I learned about those two and other undocumented features from https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented
You could also subscribe to HN on feed reader with such limitations, https://edavis.github.io/hnrss/ and http://hnapp.com/ are two that I have used in the past. e.g. https://hnrss.org/newest?comments=100 and http://hnapp.com/rss?q=comments%3E100 creates a feed limited by number of comments.
In the end I decided RSS wasn't ideal way to follow HN though, and for quite some time I have been using https://hckrnews.com/ almost exclusively to skim through top 10 posts for each day. Or top 20 or top 50%, if you have more free time. Plus I like the table layout, with comments/points in their respective columns.
The feature was called fast forwarding, and old Opera's successor Vivaldi still has it. For those unfamiliar with it, it also works with more complex pagination schemes than just incrementing the number at the end; e.g. Google or Bing searches.
I remember Opera also had (and Vivaldi has, I just found) an optional feature where continuing to press space after reaching the end of the page would trigger fast-forward and take you to the next page. Sort of an alternative way of infinite scrolling.
That, and calling battery "juice". It shouldn't bother me this much, but it does. Same for saying "daily driver" instead of "main phone".
I guess they are meant to color up speech / break monotony, but it gets irritating when metaphors are overused and nobody just says "battery", so in the end, just using the boring regular word feels more refreshing. Similarly for articles that keep overuse words like "whopping" instead of usual formal words (to appear more friendly, I guess), or infallibly say "invest" for everything rather than just "buy".
Mine was based on the answer here[1], now I see that the script in the answer was edited after I started using it. I should try the new version to see if it works better.
My experience with the previous version was that while it sometimes worked, on some websites it broke more than it fixed; and when I modified the script to account for that issue, it broke something somewhere else, as websites use very different methods to display images that I couldn't imagine (hence I welcome a standard way of doing it). So I ended up using the script on a whitelist basis instead. Maybe the new version works more properly, so that I can enable it globally again.
[1] https://superuser.com/questions/938345/load-all-images-even-...
I would hope that Firefox would have an about:config setting to disable it, but with the direction they are going, removing customizability left and right, who knows. Normally I would have also expected addons to disable this browser-side lazy loading, but since Firefox 57 they are more like glorified userscripts, so they probably wouldn't be able to.
On Chromium side, maybe Vivaldi and the like could provide the option to disable it, if it is not too difficult of a change on Chromium. But for sure, I would be very surprised if Chrome offered that option, so not much of an improvement for Chrome users, or maybe even a deterioration if sites start to adopt it even more, now that it is supported natively.
As another lazy loading hater, I think that's a good thing. If a website wants to use lazy loading, it should be handled by the browser, rather than using a custom JavaScript code that the webpage requests. There being one universal method means that there is only one setting that I need to disable to avoid lazy loading. Currently I use a userscript based on heuristics to load all lazy-loading images, but it often doesn't work, as websites use a wide variety of methods to implement it.
Also, incorporating lazy loading into the browser would make NoScript viable in far more websites. Most of the time the only reason why I consider enabling JavaScript for a website is to view lazy-loading images, everything else works good enough (or better) without JavaScript. With lazy loading being done by the browser, almost no website I come across would have this problem, unless they choose to intentionally break without Javascript. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place without lazy loading, but alas, here we are, with most websites using it.
Google is the developer of the most popular web browser. If this is really a common problem, they can make UI changes to their browser to make that more accessible. It is not so hard to imagine a way to do it for even the most casual users, e.g. maybe using something similar to the Google Translate headers I notice when I use Chrome.
Besides, I have difficulty believing that this is a common problem. I have never seen a user whose OS was configured to a wrong language. Even if they have zero computer knowledge, they just ask someone else to fix it as the first thing. Computers/smartphones are already scary for technophobes; they wouldn't even touch them when they are in a language they don't understand.
This is especially irritating for VPN users as it is not just a problem when traveling, but all the time. I essentially gave up on hoping to get Google pages in a language that I understand. However, they made the situation worse in the past year: even if I use my country's localized Google domain, Google ignores that and gives me results according to my IP: websites from a different country about a possibly irrelevant subject, in a language I don't understand.