Proton is one of the best examples of this phenomenon. Almost all Windows games work on Linux via Proton. Sometimes they even run better than they do on Windows.
About the only time it doesn't work is when the game uses an anticheat system that intentionally blocks Linux. I can even see where the game devs are coming from when it comes to competitive games; cheating ruins the game for other players, and there's no way to prevent certain kinds of cheating without trusting the client to a degree.
I can't see any reasonable and user-respecting place VW could be coming from intentionally blocking access from open systems.
> My take is that they were trying to block rooted phones and/or custom ROMs of questionable origin
There are only bad reasons for them to do that. End users don't get compromised that way in reality, but it does mean they might convince the app to do something that's bad for profits.
The article is discussing "share on [Facebook,Twitter,etc...]" type buttons on websites, not share via [OS functionality or other native app] buttons inside native apps.
That said, I'm curious as to why someone with enough technical sophistication to be posting on HN browses Amazon with a native mobile app instead of a web browser.
Because using Amazon, one of the most popular e-commerce sites and an example of an app that doesn't expose a URL of content makes a great example of a wide class of applications and conveys the message I was trying to express.
Why do you, as someone with enough technical sophistication to be posting on HN, not understand the words? This is sarcasm, you don't need to answer.
I'll give the straight answer to what I think is a rhetorical question.
Firefox for Android syncs with Firefox desktop so there's a shared history and I can easily send tabs from one to the other. It's also easy to copy proper URLs instead of shady shortlinks that often contain affiliate codes and trip spam filters. Finally, I don't want to give Amazon a foothold on my devices; the browser has a stronger sandbox than native apps do.
Sure, but with phone numbers that can't be spoofed, telcos can terminate service, and filtering technologies can block calls. Spam gets expensive if you have to buy new service every five calls.
Preventing spoofing doesn't have to make spam cost-prohibitive for every spammer to greatly reduce the volume, and it does not interfere with ordinary people obtaining phone service anonymously.
There are already regulations forbidding the use of unapproved LED retrofits in housings designed for incandescent bulbs in most countries. The fact that your mechanic gets away with installing them, and you get away with driving your now-illegal car shows how well they are enforced.
Unless your car's design is particularly evil (a real possibility), changing a headlight bulb is usually easy to do yourself, and approved, incandescent headlight bulbs are easy to source most places.
There are LED replacement bulbs that mimic the light emitting pattern of halogen and also are not massively bright. Those are fine and cops are not going after people with that kind of thing.
All the text is invisible for me in Firefox on Linux when the `--font-body` is set to `"Atkinson", sans-serif`. Setting it to `"Atkinson Hyperlegible", sans-serif` fixed it.
Somebody had to work on it before it was how the world is. When Microsoft proposed a scheme involving remote attestation and DRM in 2003, the New York Times published a critical article. Google SafetyNet a decade later barely got a whimper out of major tech outlets, much less the mainstream press.
>Somebody had to work on it before it was how the world is.
The mindset the parent described extends to what they're asked to do. They don't challenge it. It doesn't have to already be law for them to accept it and build it. It's enough that the ask comes from authority (a boss, a government) and pays.
In addition to all the creepiness, the email had a link to stripe to pay them $500? I wonder if the email is hiding a prompt injection somewhere to trick a bot into paying?
I don't think they're actual companies. One of the more recent emails I received contains this bit:
"If you're already employed, I can also support you in taking
on additional contract work. I'll guide you through the entire interview process to help you succeed and get hired.
In this partnership, your main role would be attending client
meetings, while I handle all development and written communication. We would then split the income, with you receiving 40% of the project
earnings."
Guy introduced himself as a "senior full-stack developer with over nine years of experience in web, mobile, and iOS development".
Those are known scams. They usually reside in sanctioned countries like North Korea (but I've also gotten a lot of Chinese ones), and they make you bear any legal risk if they try to install backdoors in the client codebase. They also run the same scam with wanting your Upwork or similar credentials.
I received the exact same email, except they offered me 50% of earnings, so the message sending script probably has some randomization built in. My guess is that their true objective is to get you to install their "interview support app" which is mentioned at the end of the email, I anticipate that it makes your device remotely useful to them, or installs ransomware. But it could be a more involved scam.
I got that too, and "creepy" is the same word that came to mind.
For one, the choice of child, is already creepy even if you refer to a pet as a child, but a software system as a substitute for childbearing, it reminds me of the claw cult, you can call it a company, a system, a project.
And calling it a daughter, man I don't even want to get into it.
> For one, the choice of child, is already creepy even if you refer to a pet as a child, but a software system as a substitute for childbearing, it reminds me of the claw cult, you can call it a company, a system, a project.
On the other hand, I feel like the obsession with childbearing (constant fear about birth rates, pressure on women to become mothers, etc.) to be a lot more creepy than someone having wholesome protective love for their pets.
I fully agree with you about the creepiness of software "children", but I can't really relate to the pet part. It's honestly weird to me when people just kind of think of their pets as like, non-human roommates or something, when there's clearly one entity that has a responsibility to care for the other one since they're dependent on them for food, water, and shelter.
That's a pretty silly argument to me. No other species uses toilets, wears clothes, or posts on Hacker News, but we don't treat those as arguments that we have to act like them in those ways.
>" Following your example, I might send the list an announcement whenever a new GNU program is written. That happens less often than babies are born, it does the world a lot more good, it reflects more conscious creativity and hard work, and some of the readers might actually find the information useful. Even so, I think most of the readers would consider this outside the scope and purpose of the list. Clearly that goes double for babies." -Richard M Stallman
I have a cat named Emacs -- I wonder how Doctor would analyze that?
With all respect for Mr. Stallman, he has faced consequences of his choice of being childless, and it has been quite distressing for him.
Recently he was campaigning against being banned (or not accepted as a speaker) from schools. At age 70 something it must be quite hard not to have children or grandkids, but for parents to block you from their kids is even harder. At least that's how I understood his focus on clearing his name and being accepted as a speaker in highschools.
AI slop and hallucinations are bad, but what your own human imagination is pulling out of your own human ass is so much more pernicious and intentionally slanderous and demeaning.
What proof do you have about anything you're claiming so confidently? Do you know him? Did he tell you that? Can you quote his own words, or at least cite your sources?
Uh, I think it has a lot more to do with the sexual harassment than being childless. Plenty of people without kids don't have this problem, and it's kind of silly to frame it as "well if he only had kids then he'd be fine..."
Yes, the sexual issues, harrasment or otherwise, are the reason he has trouble doing presentations in high schools.
The childless issue is what makes this so important for him personally, otherwise I believe it wouldn't have been so pressing a matter for him to engage in a crusade. It's his chosen way to engage with the new generation, and he has lost access to it.
It's incredibly creepy for you to so confidently make such accusations about his state of mind and problems and motivations without evidence. So what is it?
reply