Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | niam's commentslogin

If it saves anyone else the effort: I went to doublecheck the claim that those articles cited the wrong page, and it seems you're correct on The Register, but archive.org's earliest copies of the other two articles don't seem to reference the impostor site. They refer instead to the GitHub.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260301133636/https://www.there... https://web.archive.org/web/20260211162657/https://venturebe... https://web.archive.org/web/20260220201539/https://thenewsta...


So as to not mislead anyone who didn't read the article, the section following your quoted text is:

> Researchers from lower risk countries have been told they could lose access beginning in either September or December if at that point they have been at the lab more than 2 years or, under a waiver, 3 years.

In other words: they're also looking to bar foreign nationals outside of that quoted list, which to my mind is less understandable.


When unstructured human language is the bulk of your interface, it takes effort to contrive any vendor lock-in that doesn't approach zero.

The same doesn't go for traditional, structured software ecosystems, which can afford to coast for a lot longer.


Complex Systems by Patrick McKenzie (patio11). Casual interview format with guests from myriad industries, who try to distill human/technical bits of respective systems. Often it's about tech/finance/govt, or relates to them.

I found it independently of his other work (e.g Bits About Money, or VaccinateCA), which is fitting. The amount of stuff I've read from that guy (including on hn) but did not attribute to a single person seems anomalously high for me. https://www.kalzumeus.com/greatest-hits/

That, and "The Optimal Amount of Fraud is Non-Zero", which is an idiom I paraphrase frequently by this point.


The discussion is probably better started from the question of "why should that data be centralized?" and "why should the government be able to purchase this data, and why are those reasons more compelling than the downsides?".

I have to guess that the folks clamoring to put computer vision "back in the bag" are somewhere on the margins, and resemble straw more than steel.


I have no horse in the short-form video race, but I recognize that it has material affects on the world (whether I'd like it or not). Scorn for the principle of an open platform here seems misplaced. It seems too young of a format with too few examples to confidently say it's irredeemable.

What if we could say with some certainty that the format makes people stupid?

https://youtu.be/tdIUMkXxtHg


We don't have many examples of short form video feeds which are divorced from the the TikTok and Reels algorithm -- both of which are aggressively incented to "engage" a user in ways they may not have preferred in the retrospect.

Well that's why people are doing science to figure that out. Right now it looks like the format itself acutely affects short term memory. The video really is worth a watch.

HN is generally the place you come to to hate anything new in tech. No new piece of tech released in is ever liked here. Everyone nitpicks, strawmans, and complains that the v1 of the product is not perfect. It’s honestly so tiresome

Unhelpful nitpicks and people complaining about them get downvotes.

At this time the top comment on this post is complaining about the rest of the comments. This is not how things should be around here.


> It also does not have an ad blocker

It does have a network-level ad blocker. What it doesn't have is a blocker which modifies/injects Javascript into pages, which iiuc is the main reason that the blocker doesn't help with ads on YouTube much, or pages which employ similar techniques.

> They recommend against using Firefox.

To clarify: they recommend against Firefox Mobile because it didn't support site isolation until last month's v147 updates. I don't know if the goalpost has moved since, but in any case: there's nothing on Graphene that would prevent you from using Firefox.


Firefox 147 doesn't provide site sandboxing or even basic content sandboxing on Android. They enabled multi-process support by default but still don't provide any form of sandbox for the separate processes. They enabled the separation part of site isolation which is partially implemented for Firefox desktop and now mobile but do not have content sandboxing and partial site sandboxing as they do for the desktop browser. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1565196 for their still open issue with many other issues as dependencies for sandboxing.

The complete lack of content and site sandboxing on Firefox for Android is only one of the reasons we recommend against it. It has major security deficiencies beyond this and cannot benefit from many of the hardware and OS protections due to it. Vanadium is much more secure than standard Chromium while Firefox is much less secure than it, so there's quite a stark difference between them.

Recommending against using Firefox and F-Droid due to major security deficiencies doesn't in any way reduce user choice as the post above portrays it. Having a lot of accurate information provided by GrapheneOS enables our users to make more well informed decisions. We also do not specifically recommend the Play Store as the post says above but rather we provide nuanced information about the available choices. Specifically for obtaining apps from the Play Store which aren't available directly from the developers, we recommend using the sandboxed Play Store for users who using sandboxed Google Play in a profile for app compatibility already. Play Store itself has signature verification while Aurora Store only has TLS with a smaller set of trusted CAs by default similar to many Google apps. Aurora Store is sometimes needed to work around app's filtering who can install it so we do recommend it for that specific purpose. Aurora Store still logs into a Play Store account and making a throwaway account to use the Play Store app doesn't reduce privacy compared to using sandboxed Google Play without one.


You'd be pleased to hear, then, that "break free from Google and Apple" is not Graphene's mission statement, because this is a blog.


If I were an assuming feller I'd "almost guarantee" that you haven't been blessed/cursed with anything besides Windows 11.

A lot of my beef, personally, can be chalked up to Windows' aggressively long animation times. It's serviceable with them turned off. But even with animations turned off on an aggressively debloated consumer PC there is either a notable delay or a perception thereof in context menus and file explorer that did not exist with Windows 10, or on my Linux machines.


Speaking of animations, it’s shocking to me how bad they are.

I turned on hiding the taskbar the other day. I don’t think they’ve changed it since Windows 95. I have a modern gaming laptop, and the animation is purely linear, no acceleration. It feels so weirdly unnatural. Even worse, it’s not smoothly animated! I have a 120Hz monitor but it seems to be animated at 5fps.

Nobody on the Windows team seems to give a single shit at all.


win11 look and feel felt a rushed metoo kneejerk reflex


From the comment you're replying to: "Windows does it better than my mac or Linux boxes by a mile"

So I wouldn't assume they've only used Windows. FWIW I also primarily use Windows 11 currently, but have also used other OS'es. I've experienced frustrations with all of them. Just because it's fast for you doesn't mean it's fast for everyone, and vice-versa. I could certainly buy that more people are having problems with 11 than they did with 10, though it hasn't been my personal experience. Just saying we shouldn't assume our own experiences are universal.


The irony of that first line might be lost along the wire because I explicitly called it an assumption where the gp did not.


> Why does HN love analogies?

I suppose because they resemble the abstractions that make complex language possible. Another world full of aggressive posturing at tweet-length analogistic musings might have stifled some useful English parlance early.

But I reckon that we shouldn't have called it phishing because emails don't always smell.


> I suppose because they resemble the abstractions that make complex language possible

As in models: All analogies are "wrong", some analogies are useful.


If you ever heard a sermon by a priest it’s loaded with analogies. Everyone loves analogies but analogies are not a form of reason and can often be used to mislead. A lot of these sermons are driven by reasoning via analogy.

My question is more why does HN love analogies when the above is true.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: