The entire point of Chrome's existence is to report all usage data to Google. There have very recently been a number of articles indicating that even Sundar Pichai is mistaken about when Chrome does and does not send info to Google, and that even when choosing the setting that indicates that data will not be sent, Chrome actually does still report data back to Google.

Google has proven over and over again that they are not to be trusted with anything even vaguely related to privacy, because their entire business model depends on profiling their users. So all these new proposals and standards and protocols that they come up with ultimately benefit Google before providing any sort of benefit to the end user.

If you think I need a tin-foil hat, ask yourself this: if Google's ad business had to be split off into an entirely isolated, independent entity with zero relationship to the rest of Google's business units, how many of them would shut down overnight? How does the Chrome team make money without feeding data to the Ad business? Is Android's Play Store profitable enough to support the entire Android ecosystem without feeding data back to the Ad business? Maps? Free Gmail? Every product Google makes depends on the Ad business, and the Ad business will only support the other products if they are contributing to the Ad profiles.

The point is that Google is making this out to be a great privacy feature for end-users, when Google still can track you just fine - it's a smokescreen.

The reason Google is doing this is because it hurts their competitors, makes it harder for their competitors to track and profile users, and therefore makes Google's profiles much more attractive, so they can make their ads more expensive.

In isolation, Google is not necessarily any better off for doing this, but their competitors are now worse off, which is why they're doing it.

Why isn't Google operating the second proxy instead? Because by operating the first one, they are already in control of the browser, and they can track all of the connections coming in to the proxy. They have to know the destination by definition, (so they can tell the second proxy where to terminate the connection). So *they* will know which sites *you* are visiting... and you can safely assume that they are going to mine the fuck out of that data.

So Facebook can't correlate IP addresses to users any more because they're anonymized, but Google still knows that *you* are visiting Facebook, and they will slurp that up and store it forever.

Given that this is Google we're talking about, you can absolutely guarantee that this new change is designed 100% for Google's benefit, minimally for the end-user's benefit, and 100% for the detriment of their competition. They don't have to collude with anyone because they have set it up so they see everything anyways. Collusion only benefits the destination website, so Google has no interest in colluding because doing so dilutes Google's monopoly over your browsing data.

*Every* feature that Google introduces or change that Google has proposed to any standard, has all been driven by Google's desire to own the entire internet, just so they can shove ads down your throat. A Google-less internet would be infinitely better for everyone.

So what are all of the panel gaps for then?

If you're working with Rails, then this is what you have to deal with. DHH is unapologetic about it
https://dhh.dk/2012/rails-is-o...

I'm surprised there are so many people using Rails, when his attitude is basically "you will use it how I built it and if you don't like it then go away". Which is entirely fair to him to be sure - it is his project after all. But anyone who's adopted Rails should already know what they signed up for and shouldn't at all be surprised at this turn of events

Even if he wasn't as closed-minded as he clearly is, he is clearly an insufferable twit and would be impossible to work with

The readers at the turnstiles or on the busses/trains that you tap your card on records the card number and the fare being deducted, and those are reconciled against the topups applied to the card. So if you do an initial real topup of $100 and then just keep on adding fake topups of $10 every day, they will soon notice that the card has only done a $100 topup but has had $1000 deducted off it.
The readers often have a list of cards and balances that gets updated as often as is practical, to allow additional features like 'top up your card from a mobile app' which can't actually update the balance on the card... the reader knows that the card's balance needs to be topped up and instead of decreasing the balance when you tap in, it can apply the topup as well.

But SecureBoot doesn't encrypt the assembly, it signs it. If the signature validation fails, the OS will refuse to launch the application. That's why you can disable secureboot and still run an unsigned binary. If the binaries were encrypted rather than signed, then it would be impossible to decrypt and run with secureboot disabled. All that secureboot does is introduces cooperation between the bootloader and the OS so that the bootloader can validate the initial OS startup code to make sure its signed by an authority that it recognizes, and then can tell the rest of the OS that it trusts the files that it booted from, so the rest of the OS can then enforce that chain of trust. But you can still disassemble photoshop.exe just like you could before.

This is different from DRM for downloaded content like videos etc, which *are* encrypted, and can be decrypted by a key which can be stored in a TPM.

And in those twice-yearly visits he makes sure to tell the staff they're working too slowly and to imagine they have bombs strapped to their heads to get them to work faster.
Given the number of stories about how monkeys are dying in agony due to sloppy processes, and all they have to show for it is a brief demo of a monkey playing pong for a few seconds, why the rush to go to human trials, except to stroke Musk's galaxy-sized ego?

That's actually his son. Elon has referred to him as "Lil X" which got many people confused as to why he'd be referring to the Old Town Road musician in his tweets.

His daughter's name is Exa Dark Siderail or Sidereal or something similar to that, and Grimes has changed her name to Y (short for Why). Not sure if that's an official name change, but she has said that she wanted to shorten it even further to "?" but the government wouldn't allow that, so there's the implication is that she's probably tried to legally change her name to Y or Why.

It's going to be interesting to follow up on these kids in 15-20 years time to see what effect their parents brain-damaged decisions have had on them. Elon already has a M2F transitioned daughter who has changed her name and wishes nothing to do with him (not surprising, considering the amount of anti-trans commentary he continues to make, despite news of him having a trans child of his own being wide-spread). Grimes seems to be treating her two children as art projects rather than human beings. Elon has so many children I'd be surprised if he actually remembers all of their names at any point in time.

In particular, especially now since the iPads and MacBooks both use the exact same internals, and since macOS can already run iOS and iPadOS apps, there is literally no technical reason why macOS can't run on an iPad.

Apple most likely has calculated that allowing macOS to run on an iPad will cannibalise MacBook sales, so until their projections show that they'll be able to make the same or better turnover from iPads running macOS, they won't do it.

Personally I would love to be able to dock my iPad to a keyboard and use it as a notebook. As it is, I just have the 64GB iPad Air model since the apps I use don't require a lot of storage. But if I were able to use it as a full MacBook replacement, I'd most likely get a 512GB or 1TB iPad Pro with a magic keyboard as well. While that works for me, it probably doesn't work for Apple.

I own a business, and the business email is hosted on O365. I use my email address for both personal and work stuff. The distinction is meaningless to me.
I just want to use a single email address to login to everything. I don't want to have to think about whether this service used my "Microsoft" account vs my "Work or school" account.
What's even more infuriating is that some MS services will not work with "work/school" accounts, and insist that you must use a "Microsoft" account.
They could solve this stupidity by allowing a Work/School account to also contain a Microsoft account, or the other way around, and to allow a merge between the two, but they won't.
My PC is signed into AzureAD with my O365 credentials, and that's the only email address I care to use ever. But MS forces me to have a second one, because their own services refuse to let me login with an account hosted by their own backend.
It is beyond idiotic, and the fact that nobody at MS finds it odd that they can't use a single set of credentials for all of their MS services is quite baffling.

The thing is, he is worth more than $44b, so even if his crypto-bro investors are no longer able to fill in their share, he can sell $44b worth of TSLA to finance it. He made an offer to buy it, not an offer of him plus some imaginary group of investors to buy it. As long as Twitter isn't at fault for anything, they should just tell him that he needs to figure something out, since he's clearly able to afford it himself.

And then TSLA shareholders can sue him for the resulting tanking of their share values.

No doubt he never wanted to buy it. He made a public statement that he wanted to buy it because his giant ego convinced him that he alone had the brilliance to fix all of Twitter's problems and he loves to pull statements out of his ass without spending a fraction of a second actually thinking them through.

Then after his head cleared from whatever substance was clouding it, and he realised what an idiotic idea it was, he could have simply not gone ahead with signing the deal, except his giant ego wouldn't allow him to create the impression to his worshippers that he was wrong to make the offer in the first place, so he then decided to go ahead with the offer, with the plan to find reasons to back out later and make it look like it was Twitter's fault.

Except now Twitter is calling his bluff. He's counting on the fact that he's never been held accountable in any meaningful way before, that he's going to troll or misdirect or bullshit his way out of this again. I'm really hoping that even if he's not forced to go through buying Twitter at the price he offered, he's successfully held to account for stock manipulation by both Twitter and Tesla's shareholders. The man acts and speaks without any regard for consequence, not caring that his actions and words have real-world effects for many other people.

I don't know what powers the SEC actually has, but if they had any teeth, they'd prohibit him from holding any executive level position in any listed company, because he is a danger to the shareholders due to him being a moron.

They've been pushing the single codebase dream for a while already since purchasing Xamarin, and are evolving it further with MAUI which promises a single codebase delivering Windows, Android, iOS, macOS, Web and potentially Linux.

Naturally, MS won't use this for any of their own apps, just like how they never used Xamarin Forms for anything other than the MS News and Azure mobile apps, but they'll keep telling devs it's the best thing they need to adopt.

Their idea for single-codebase-cross-platform is great, but they really need to mandate from the top that they need to dogfood the product in their own apps as well.

All of the major social media companies have a list of banned users, and they also all have automated processes to identify if people are trying to evade the block list.

The court just needs to instruct each of the social media companies that need to be disallowed, to add this user to their banned list, and the social media company then enforces the ban list.