I don’t think I’m disputing your facts, I was responding to the scenario you presented which was, essentially, “what about email”. I would say it’s fair that my opinion on a canonical browser history is solid and unlikely to change, though.
I think the word ‘app’ was being used in place of ‘webapp’ there, which is the general target audience for this feature.
I don’t think that email and browser history are similar enough to make a meaningful comparison, honestly.
Maybe someone could say that, but I am not.
I see a specific instance of a specific bad feature being specifically abused. I don’t care to entertain whatabouts.
I accept that it’s how things are, I just personally feel as though the only way this feature could ever work as it does now is with the implementation it has now, and that the convenience of single page webapps that use history manipulation is not worth the insane annoyance of helping my grandma get out of websites that tell her that she has been hacked by the FBI.
I’m frustrated that removing bad functionality is being treated as a slippery slope with obviously bad and impossible jokes as the examples chosen.
I see a bad feature being abused, and I don’t see the removal of that bad feature as a dangerous path to getting rid of email. I don’t ascribe the same weight that you seem to towards precedent in this matter.
It’s the Handset Protocol/Handsfree Protocol that was developed for simultaneous sending and receiving of voice data. They’re the only protocols that support sending and receiving voice at the same time, and they do that by sending mono telephone quality audio and receiving mono telephone quality audio.
It’s why most gaming headsets, even ones with Bluetooth, include a small RF dongle separately. Bluetooth is technically incapable of high-quality audio when recording.
Well, the Starlink could be connected by an admin to a computer that is connected to SIPRNet, right? It exposes itself as just a router.
I mean, assuming the Starlink was brought on board by someone with authorization to be on board, any possible adversarial situation would necessarily be an internal issue to begin with.
Personally, I think the most likely answer involves an Xbox.
Until we can finally kill HSP/HFP, I’m never gonna be happy with Bluetooth. Using a headset mic shouldn’t blast you back to the telephone era.
You can’t connect a star link to siprnet.
Can you connect a computer? Because if so, that same computer can then be connected to the starlink, no?
I know absolutely nothing about secure government networking, I’m just kind of assuming that something has to be able to connect to both individually and also simultaneously.
I’m a self-taught C# dev, I’ve found tremendous success specifically just describing what I want to do in dumb language that I’d feel stupid asking people IRL about and that aren’t googleable without knowing what both the terms “null-coalescing” and “non-merchandise supergroup” are describing.
There are a lot of patterns that don’t have obvious names and that aren’t easily described without describing a specific scenario in a way that might only make sense institutionally, or with additional context that your average person might not have. ChatGPT is fairly good at being the “buddy that you have a bunch of in-jokes with that can remember things better than you”. I can skip a lot of explaining why I need to do a thing a certain way like I can with my coworkers (who all aren’t programmers), and I can get helpful answers for programming questions that my coworkers don’t know the answers to.
It’s frustrating to see this incredibly advanced context-aware autocorrect on steroids get used in ways that don’t acknowledge the inherent strengths of what LLMs are actually great at doing. It’s infuriating to have that potential be actively misused and packaged as a service and have that mediocre service sold to you once a month as a necessity by idiots in suits watching a line on a chart.
They don’t seem to provide a source for that. It’s probably fake, and also this post is frustratingly clickbaity for my tastes.
I am no longer interested in continuing a conversation with you, as you’ve convinced me that you’re not interested in engaging with what I am saying. Thank you for your time and perspective to this point.
You are misunderstanding me.
I am not disagreeing with you, but it’s intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge the context of the reality we live in: it used to require genuine talent and skill to use a paid tool to fake images, and now is as easy as entering text on your phone in a free app just describing what you want to see.
This is an exponential escalation of existing problems and technologies.
I never said I was just now worried about fake images. To say it myself: I’m worried about the now non-existent barrier that bad actors no longer need to clear to do whatever they want to do here.
You said “but” like it invalidated what I said, instead of being a true statement and a non sequitur.
You aren’t wrong, and I don’t think that changes what I said either.
Photoshop requires time and talent to make a believable image.
This requires neither.
Man, I never knew that my ISP was working so hard for me.
The Device is now more valuable than the organs and combined incomes of everyone in SubjectHometownHere.
Depending on your use case, maybe you should. If your use case is “using the internet today securely”, then you definitely should.
I’m not trying to create a logical puzzle that teasing the right details out of will solve, I’m not even advocating for or against their decision, discord fuckin sucks shit and I can’t wait for element to continue to mature towards enough feature parity that a switch is seamless so that I can actually convince my friends to switch too, I’m reporting a reality of life on the internet today.
As someone who uses BSD licensed modified code at work and relies on it quite a lot, it’s crucial to me choosing which projects I’m able to use in the first place.
Personally, I prefer a license that allows for commercial use in the way that companies need them to, and if my own work ever can provide a patch back upstream I’d be happy to do so, but most of what I do is just tweaking things that exist to suit my purposes which doesn’t really help anyone but my business rivals which I personally am not interested in doing if I don’t have to.
I prefer to have the freedom to do as I wish with the code, as compared to being bound to do as the author wishes and essentially just not using that code in the first place because I can’t. I’m not in a position to change what I can and can’t do because of the requirements of the business I work for, and I’m grateful to those that choose licenses that allow me to use their work.
They’re creating a new browser because they want to. It started as an OS building project that the lead dev did to help stay sober.
They use discord because it’s popular. Insert Ouroborus argument here, and at the end of the day it’s still the most popular app.
Sorry, this comment was mainly just providing the previous user with a correction because they seemed to think that the other person that they were replying to was talking about forcing people to use phone apps, which I assume we all agree is bad and would likely work if there were a concentrated push for it.
Concerning your points after “using the browser”: I want websites to use replaceState and manage their own intra-page navigation with a cookie. They can still intercept the back button as they do now, but they should only get the single history entry until they switch to a new page, if they ever do.