On Android I just rejected access to contacts.

Then to add a contact enter their phone number specifically and it works for me.

I reinstalled the app just now to re-check.

Click the green 'Add chat' icon.

It prompts: "To help you connect with friends and family, allow WhatsApp access to your contacts" with options for Not now, and Continue.

Not Now closes the dialogue, and returns you to the main chat list.

Continue launches the Android prompt for "Allow WhatsApp to your contacts", clicking Don't Allow returns you to the main chat list.

So, unless there's something else you need to do...

e:

Make a Call works the same way.

I can create a community and a group chat in that, and even send messages to the group.

I can't add anyone to the group though, same "Give us your contacts" thing.

I blocked whatsapp from contacts, so it doesn't popup the prompt anymore, but I don't even get the "to help you connect ..." prompt either.

when I go to the green "add chat" icon, I just get a list with my whatsapp contacts (not system contacts) and if I add a phone number I can talk to them directly (and/or add them to the whatsapp contacts instead of system contacts).

  WhatsApp Messenger
  Version 2.24.24.77

Maybe if you already have some contacts it will let you see your contacts list and add them manually.

But I have none, and so it doesn't.

I don't know the version number, but my check above was from the version on Google Play store. The attempt I initially made was several months ago.

Because it would be fragmented and have 1000 incompatible implementations if it ever got that far.

Large institutions would prefer something they control 100%, email and SMS are only used because they became ubiquitous first.

But some companies use their apps as a secure alternative.

I would think it would work better in some kind of system like how I believe Youtube Premium works.

You pay $10/mth, and then that $10 gets split into $1 overhead and $9 allocated to the sites you tip/visit/use during the month.

So you visit 100 sites, each site gets $0.09, you visit 10 sites, each site gets $0.90 and if somehow you only visit 1 site, it gets $9 from you.

So you're not paying hundreds of dollars a month without realising, you don't need to go through payment processing for every site it's just invisible.

It could probably be tracked the same way ads are, so instead of an advertisement the section is removed (or the first ad block in the page is replaced with "thanks for the tip" and the rest are just removed).

So technically you're not paying the site, you're paying for "ad-free browsing" on those sites.

It's just another option, you can use the laptop, or repurpose that mainboard after an upgrade and keep the screen/etc.

I like it, it's much better than what I've used previously.

I made a docker container to run it (https://github.com/na4ma4/docker-yark), when I get time I'll do a PR if you're interested so it isn't a separate project.

(I'll also fix it so the host is a command line argument not just changing the binding from 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0)

You can use environment variables with error messages

https://docs.docker.com/compose/environment-variables/

   - `${VARIABLE:?err}` exits with an error message containing err if `VARIABLE` is unset or empty in the environment.
   - `${VARIABLE?err}` exits with an error message containing err if `VARIABLE` is unset in the environment.

The dishwasher I got was the same, the app wanted access to location at all times (precise not approximate).

If I disabled the permission it would stop working.

So I switched to the home assistant integration for it and removed the app from my phone.

Why on earth would a dishwasher need an app? You have to load it before you start it... later, you walk by, it's done, you unload it.

My friend's stove has an app... "Oh shit the milk is boiling over, quick get the phone, unlock it, tap the app icon, wait until it's loaded, navigate to the proper submenu and turn it off!"

Best thing it's he didn't even know at first. He bought a new washing machine that had app support, so out of curiosity he installed the app and scanned for devices, but the app only found his stove.

Technology was a mistake.

The main use cases are around notifications - it's done, it needs X/Y consumable, A/B maintenance, etc.

And with location data, turning it on when leaving the house.

Another smart scenario I can think of, link it with energy prices and a real-time dynamic energy contract, and/or solar panel output or battery charge levels, to only run it when it's cheapest to do so.

Of course, that means having it stand-by to run at all times, meaning it may run half-empty and you need to keep the door closed which will cause mold etc.

I'm pretty sure it's to enable a feature where it can turn on when you leave the house. However, that should be an optional feature, with them only asking for location tracking when you actually enable the option.

Should be, but here's the thing: they don't want to build the best app or customer experience through convenient features, they want your (location) data, because aggregated, that shit is worth more than the stupid dishwasher.

They don't make money on selling dishwashers anymore; components, shipping, marketing and middle men will swallow up any profit. But location data and subscriptions will bring in the real money, over a long and continuous period of time.

See also this story from a Twitter engineer who talked to mobile phone companies that were prepared to pay big money for location data; I can't find the source anymore, but it's been reposted on various outlets: https://hindupost.in/media/an-ex-twitter-engineer-reveals-ho...

Is there any courses that are free to try as a demo instead of the video ?

Personally I'm a "learn by doing" person so demo videos are just too slow.

It's quite ironic too, for a site that advocates prose over video.

> the private part indicates the privacy it provides not the destination.

I wouldn't entirely agree with that (although out of context I do agree).

It's a Virtual Private Network connection, you create a Virtual (not physical) Private Network (between your device and another device/server) there's no real difference between a site-to-site VPN and a client-access VPN other than if the devices at each end route more than just the partner traffic over the private network.

If I connect a "site-to-site VPN" between my computer and your computer, if I add a route to send all traffic for a particular network to your computer as the next hop, that makes it "client-access" for that particular network, if I add a default route it then sends any internet request I make to your device as the next hop.

If your device decides to forward the packets (and probably NAT them) then I now have some privacy for my internet traffic.

VPNs were originally designed to replace dial-up modem connections since the internet was becoming more ubiquitous and it would be far cheaper for someone to connect to their local ISP then use a VPN to connect to their remote network (either personally or usually between sites), than dial directly to their other site (also it was usually far cheaper for one internet connection than a bank of modems and ISDN lines (if you wanted 56.6Kbps or 64Kbps connections)

> It's a Virtual Private Network connection, you create a Virtual (not physical) Private Network (between your device and another device/server) there's no real difference between a site-to-site VPN and a client-access VPN other than if the devices at each end route more than just the partner traffic over the private network.

The difference is one end is not a network but an endpoint part of a network. Multiple client access VPNs can be part of the same subnet.

> If I connect a "site-to-site VPN" between my computer and your computer, if I add a route to send all traffic for a particular network to your computer as the next hop, that makes it "client-access" for that particular network, if I add a default route it then sends any internet request I make to your device as the next hop.

In site-to-site VPN, your computer would need to route a separate site network as would the remote end. With client access only the remote end routes a sparate network. Windows for example cannot be used (unless server versions) to provide site-to-site connectivity because it does not route between NICs. Your tunnel IP is used for connectivity with client access but with site-to-site the remote end expects you to adverise a route or have a separate config for a static route back to some other network on your end which is what it will route (won't work otherwise). Hope that is more clear. You can turn your nix box to a s2s vpn terminator but in every VPN type this requires different config which is why the different terms exist.

Nice try AI.