Comment Re:How thrilling... (Score 1) 58
There's nothing offensively wrong with it; but the price tag befits a device that is genuinely compelling in some way, which it isn't.
Did anyone *really* expect a crapp to have any sort of security whatsoever?
It's a trifle surprising given that the usual 'eh, let's just wrap our shit mobile website in a UIWebView and call it a day' school of 'app' development would likely have inherited SSL through sheer laziness, while whatever attempt at app development CNN attempted is apparently so dysfunctional as to be markedly worse than the state of website logins in general, and apparently so incoherent that the phone and tablet versions don't share login behavior...
That seems like the sort of thing that takes effort to screw up.
The
It doesn't help that the squeeze is really coming from both sides: On the low end, the performance of onboard audio has improved(SNR may still make the golden-eared cringe; but horrors of the old days are mostly banished, so adequate performance, usually with fairly well behaved default drivers, is rarely a problem).
On the high end, odds are good that the user already has a preferred DAC and amplifier which will skip the cheap and electrically noisy PC entirely. Even fairly nasty onboard sound often has digital out, and with HDMI and displayport including audio support, so do most graphics cards, even integrated GPUs.
Unless you are trying to drive a touchy and analog only device, maybe a nice pair of headphones or an older amplifier or receiver, there just isn't an obvious need for what creative is selling.
How do you defend yourself against accusations like that as a man? We are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women, can you really say thats not true without becoming another "point of proof" that they have?
Well, the most obvious step is to distinguish between "That's not true of me" and "That's not true". The first statement(while not always accurate) is much easier to confirm or deny. Plus, you aren't immediately put in the position of having to 'win' the debate in order to lay out your own position. If you immediately conflate population-level complaints with personal complaints, you end up taking on a markedly larger and more challenging position.
It may also be true that you suspect the harassment to be the work of a vocal and dedicated minority(and it would actually be rather interesting to see what the logs say about troll distribution in various internet locations) rather than a general thing; but you still gain nothing by tying the desire to defend yourself with the desire to defend a population.
Every time I hear about a terrifyingly invasive means of "improving performance" its targeted at developers. Is it just selection bias, or does the world actually hate us?
Mostly because they are a newer profession and a trickier one to quantify.
Time and motion studies, along with 'scientific management' were already a serious hit in terrifyingly invasive performance enhancement for blue collar labor around the turn of the 20th century(Taylor and the Gilbreths being the poster children, with many successors). The workers who haven't been replaced by robots yet are likely still subject to a descendant of it. Though less amenable to automation, service sector jobs are also rationalized more or less as tightly as available technique allows.
Software development is still a work in progress because it only started existing comparatively recently and because it takes more technology to dismiss any "Oh, what we do here is unquantifiable skilled craftsmanship" positions.
It is selection bias, in that you apparently haven't heard of it happening to basically everyone it can reach; but the world does actually hate you, and is actively working on making software development absolutely as soul crushing as seems economically desirable.
So, a canvas randomizer is needed, isn't it? Or a means to get many, many machines to all appear identical.
Unfortunately, since this technique is almost certainly being used alongside a suite of others, it's tricky to know what tactic is most privacy-maximizing. Canvas randomization would ensure that your browser's canvas fingerprint does not remain stable; but if the attacker is able to determine that you are randomizing(by making multiple runs, possibly even from different domains, that ought to be identical but won't be if your canvas is randomized), that may also be a behavior distinctive enough to be useful.
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.