Thanks! This is a much better link than the OP, and better preempts the usual round of "why not my other pet language X instead"? questions. Clearly this choice and strategy has been in the works for a long time and the team has carefully thought out all options.
> Ban all advertisements. (I'm all for it, at this point.)
What would that actually look like though?
Take something that could be considered an ad, but probably most people agree is a good thing. Say you post on here that task X is such a pain in the butt to do all the time as a general gripe, then I say hey, I built a cheap subscription webapp to solve task X easily that you might want to check out. You sign up for it and use it and like it. Seems like everybody wins - you get a problem solved for a small amount of money, I make a little money and get my project used and my work validated etc. But it's still technically an ad.
Lots of stuff like that could be considered an ad. Every "Show HN" could be considered an ad. Suggesting people vote for candidate X or party Y could be considered an ad too - plenty of organizations do pay for actual ads just like that already. Product placements is a type of ad, but it's pretty hard to not do. I don't know how you even make a movie or TV show with people driving cars without showing a particular model of car.
I don't expect that's the kind of ad that everybody is complaining about. Okay, but then how do you legislate the difference? Can you, or anyone, actually write down a definition of the ads you want to ban and the ads you don't? And how will people distort or abuse those definitions? There's billions of dollars in advertising (maybe trillions?), it's not going to all just go away because somebody passed a law. What happens when all of that money gets poured into attempting to abuse such individual personal recommendations? That's already happening on Reddit now, though at small scales for now.
You don't necessarily have to if you're just getting a speeding ticket. But in order to write a speeding ticket, you have to hand over a valid Driver's License so they know who to ticket. Exactly what should they do if the driver refuses to provide their Driver's License?
I don't think this makes a lot of sense because, if the password is quick and easy to type, it can probably be cracked by any such device in the time it takes for a single keystroke. A long and complex password might hold up okay, but for it to actually be secure, you would have to type in the whole password on a phone keyboard every single time you opened the app, which sounds like a terrible experience.
I think, if you were actually willing to do that, it would probably be about as convenient and at least as effective to leave the device powered off and rely on the device full disk encryption and hardware security to protect the data at rest, only powering it on occasionally to check or send messages, then immediately powering back off.
You do not have to type the whole password every time you open the app, only when the database is locked. You can manually lock from an unlocked state whenever you want, even from other contexts (the button to lock it is available in the background notification) or configure an automatic timeout (which is granular down to the second) to lock the database.
Maybe you don't believe Durov's statement[0] about it. But is there any actual evidence anywhere that they've ever violated the secrecy of non-e2e private groups or messages for anyone? I've yet to find any.
Speaking of, maybe I started paying attention at the wrong time, but I could swear I've seen like 10x more post/comment volume whining about how annoying the "Rust evangelism strike force" supposedly is than actual excessive Rust evangelism
Reminds me of the Oceangate disaster as proof that things at least that dumb can happen in real live involving substantial amounts of money. Including everyone who is actually an expert in the field telling them that this is idiotic and usually quitting.
"Pro-war" seems like an odd assertion here. They're recognizing the status quo in a reasonably neutral way, which seems anti-war to me.
It seems like you're advocating for Western powers to take a position, using either soft or hard power, on a war that already ended many decades ago. Sounds quite a bit like imperialism to me, and pretty far from being anti-war.
An anti-war position, at least from the perspective of a Westerner and Western companies, is more like, you guys lost, suck it up and stop asking us to intervene on your behalf.
Push back, as in this thread, can change which hierarchies are accepted and which aren't.
In particular, the use of "Greater China" normalizes corporate acquiescence to Beijing's explicitly revisionist policy preferences.
Taiwan is an independent nation. It isn't lost. And all free nations should intervene whenever the right to self-determination of another is threatened.
I don't particularly like this article, mostly because he seems to have spent the great majority of it ranting about people on the internet supposedly yelling at him about not being "on the cloud" and semantics about exactly what constitutes "the cloud". I'd be much more interested in reading exactly what he was spending that money on at AWS and how he moved it all onto one or a few bare-metal boxes.
I don't think AWS is particularly expensive at all. In fact, it's rather cheap at quite a few things if you know what you're doing and use the right services. I've got all my server backups going to S3, for which I pay a whopping penny a month. I also host a handful of Docker images on ECR for 7 cents a month - way cheaper than any other private hosting service I know of.
Now RDS, and the equivalent at every other hosting provider I know of, gets quite pricey indeed. IMO, you shouldn't bother unless you have pretty serious needs for reliability and speed. Apt install your DB server of choice on bare metal goes quite far. Or possibly pull a container of it into whatever you're using to manage containers.
reply