How is your browsing experience with that stuff? I used to go nuts with anti-tracking measures, but enough of my browsing experience kept breaking that it just didn't feel worth it.
My experience with uMatrix: most sites work right away. Others require fiddling with the matrix of media, script, xhr, frames and the third parties serving them. After a while it's easy to remember which ones must be temporary enabled and which ones don't. Sites with videos are a little more difficult. Sites with payments require care. I whitelist the minimum set of scripts that make the sites I use often work. There are usually many scripts that can be left out. If everything fails and it's a one shot site, I start Chrome.
It's fine. Sometimes I get annoyed by websites which require JavaScript to show static text (apparently HTML is too difficult?) or which block me with a 'please unblock challenges.cloudflare.com to proceed' (that second one seriously pisses me off when I see it on, for example, the website of the Belgian railways), but by and large I'm fine with just saying 'if it breaks I don't need it'. But I handle my e-mail with isync, mu, and mu4e; and as far as I understand e-mail tends to be a sticking point for those who care for their digital rights. I also don't have Xitter or Facebook or any of that nonsense.
If there's one thing I don't like its the fact that NoScript doesn't integrate with Multi-Account Containers. It would be neat if instead of having to temporarily allow GitHub JavaScript and re-disable it when I'm done; I could just allow GH JS in a GitHub or Microsoft container and it only being enabled in that container.
I've heard this before, yet my mouth remains... unaffected.
What does an "oral microbiome" even mean? I understand what it means in the literal sense, but would a person's mouth be dysfunctional if it were hypothetically devoid of microbes? Is there an accepted healthy oral microbiome composition?
Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, but I don't imagine myself relying on a digital device in order to prove my identity in foreign countries. Drop your phone and break it... then what do you do? And yeah, you can lose your physical passport, but you can also repeatedly stomp on it and even submerge it in water and it will still be useful.
Instead of stomping on your passport, grab a $30 passport card, useful for ID in non-border contexts abroad (other countries tend to have card shaped national IDs that a passport card can stand in for). No real issues if you lose it; nobody can get into the USA with it, and you can leave your passport in your hotel room
I generally do this anyway; about the only time I carry a passport while just out and about in another country (note: not risky ones) is if making large purchases that will be VAT-refundable. Do merchants accept the card in lieu of passport for verifying you for VAT exemption? Many will take a photo on the phone, but not all.
I used it in South Asia for ID purposes. There’s a lot of going to photocopier businesses to get duplicates of things (gvmt offices won’t do that for you), so it’s nice that middlemen aren’t getting your home address
US passports do not have home addresses or Social Security numbers. Date and place of birth (state, not city) only. Probably not much safer, but there it is.
I'm not sure what it actually means. For instance Apple Pay is probably not supposed to replace your actual credit card, but if you can live your life without ever using the physical one, that's just legalese.
If it really doesn't do much (i.e. only help to pass TSA lines), then perhaps it should be called something else. If it effectively can act as a passport in 80%+ more situations, "not a replacement for xxxx" will just be legalese for most users.
Yeah I purely care about whether or not this will get me through TSA. I'm against Apple Pay and all that, but I really don't want to carry (=risk losing) my physical passport just for domestic travel.
You don't need a "framework". You don't even really need a rendering/state library like React, depending on what you're doing.
If you're having difficulty thinking outside of frameworks, I would suggest you work on a simple project where you don't use anything like Next.js or React. Start with the bare minimum of tools available to you through the browser API and your backend runtime of choice, then add things on as needed. Try implementing your own routing without using a third-party package dedicated to routing. Work on your own component system, state management, or even a rendering abstraction.
I can guarantee that, once you at least near completion on such a pet project, you'll not only have a better appreciation for what frameworks are doing but realize that they're actually quite overrated in a lot of ways. In reality, it's totally feasible to build an application, especially one for the web, with more of your own code and not having to think about it in terms of how your logic fits within a "framework".
At the end of the day, 99% of frameworks is someone else's opinion. This is I think what makes churn in the JS world painful. The majority of changes are based on a developer's opinion of how things should work, but their opinion isn't necessarily better than anyone else's. Your application is not worse because it doesn't use someone's idea of how an elegant state management system should behave. It's not worse because it's doing its own DOM manipulation rather than handing off all that work to an opaque rendering library. The point is to get the job done. You can make a kickass web application with freaking Backbone or jQuery if you wanted to.
It's not that I don't appreciate frameworks, though I do think it's important for programmers to learn how to move beyond them. Frameworks don't have as big a job as many are lead to believe. Their complexity is primarily arbitrary most of the time. It's not that such complexity can't be beneficial, but bypassing said complexity doesn't require a big brain.
I really don’t like this kind of cynicism. You could use the same argument to say California will never pass a bill to enable universal opt out, which they did.
Assuming part time work (approximately one day every two weeks) at 10% of the yearly ~2000hr worked per year that equates to about $3300 per year, which seems sensible to me.
If by one day, you mean one day and night, since elected officials make all the important decisions at 3 a.m. When you give someone the job of managing billions of dollars of resources and pay them less money per year than their mortgage costs each month, what do you think they're going to do? Be a hero who protects the people from corporations? That's what everyone on this site seems to think politicians do. But the people don't pay them anything. So what makes you think they're looking after you, and not themselves? The only way they can survive is by feeding off the public. Unlike corporations, they do it through force and involuntary exchange.
When I replied to the above comment it said _five_ (not nine as it does now) figure budgets. So I assumed something akin to a person helping a community group, minor league sports team, and definitely not a billion dollar public entity.
And in that case it would certainly require a full time job. And it ought to be well paid.
But, no, I still do not subscribe to your related conspiracy theory. Can you provide any tangible examples?
I copied and pasted that line from a tweet I made a while ago. Why don't you Google "san francisco elected official pay school board" ($6000/year) and "san frascisco school board budget" ($1.2 billion). So they actually manage 10 figures up there and they get paid even less than European e-commerce developers. The President of Y Combinator is a died in the wool conspiracy theorist. He tweets all the time about his belief that they're removing algebra from curriculum. Another one of my favorite conspiracy theories is that the SF school board secretly does arms trafficking. You should google it. But at least they're better than european politicians, who are putting larvae in your food supply and want to spy on literally everyone with chat control.
Obviously I wouldn't resort to mere ad hominem, but we should call a spade a spade. If someone's trashing their employer, more likely than not, they are probably speaking the truth; unlike most who go along to get along. Corporations, at the end of the day, are sociopaths, and I'm not going to pass down their lack of empathy by proxy with toxic positivity.
> If someone's trashing their employer, more likely than not, they are probably speaking the truth
Oddly, this has not been my experience. People bitter about being let go tend to project just as much as anyone else suffering from intense negative emotions, and they tend to gloss over their own contributions in doing so (assuming the termination isn't part of a mass layoff).
At the end of the day, I agree that toxic positivity isn't helping anyone, but it's also better (imho) to not feed unconstructive negativity. If they need to vent, let them vent, then pivot.
I wouldn't see this issue as a problem if it weren't for Apple's stance that everything that can be installed on iOS has to come through App Store. If multiple stores were possible/viable for iOS, then the answer would have been to get said app elsewhere. Fundamentally, this is an issue not about Apple removing apps from their store that they don't want to host, but one of the right to do what you want with the devices you supposedly own.
This is an old chestnut that's no longer true. Safari's PWA support is better than Firefox's today, on both mobile and desktop. Two examples off the top of my head: Safari has better Web Push support, and supports the W3C's Badging API.
My impression for the last ~10+ years is that you could not depend on index db in safari, not for heavy use cases, and doubly so for ios and there was not a viable alternative whenever I checked.
I would be happy to know that things are looking better for PWAs on ios though if things are now viable.
Thanks for the additional background, I'll dig into that! FYI, based in part on our exchange, I created pwascore.com to scratch the itch of wanting a reasonably-objective "score" for browser PWA support.
Why would we want to limit ourselves to PWAs? Being able to run arbitrary executable file has been the core feature of general-purpose computers since the beginning.
I'd consider smart phones as being general-purposes, same as laptops/desktops/servers.
The way they're lock down make them really not general-purpose. Smart phones really were envisioned as thin-clients to cloud servers. When you start getting too far away from that, everything starts fighting you.
reply