Isn't part of the beauty of app sandboxing in android how it leverages the concept of users in *nix OS? IRC, each app is considered a user to the OS.
Does anyone know what they mean when they say that Apps will be sandboxed? It can't be similar if the phone is running a desktop OS masquerading as mobile OS.
I remember reading another comment on HN somewhere that broke down how project costs are different from employee costs. Something to do with employees being recurring expenses vs projects being somewhat fixed....I'm not going to do it justice. If I find the comment I'll link to it.
I don't know what your reasons against are, but a big one for me is an infringement on one's right to assemble. I know it doesn't sound like much, but for a lot of communities (especially ones that may already be "targets" for law enforcement at all levels [local, state, and federal]), surveillance may keep them from feeling safe protesting.
For example, imagine being undocumented and wanting to protest. You may second guess going to a protest (even if it benefits you to do so), because you learned law enforcement is tracking the communications and movements of protesters.
IMHO, I think this counters a philosophical point of open source software.
The open code to the software we use should not be a handout or a gift ex post facto.
The open code to the software should be an invitation: to collaborate on it, audit it, or frankly do anything you want with it (e.g. WTFPL); before, during, and after using it.
There are times to hold fast to ideals, and times when demanding purity is self-destructive. (And of course wisdom is knowing the difference, and much harder than it looks.)
Open source should be a big tent - it should be an answer to questions people have many different motives for asking. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
That's like saying "landlords shouldn't be incentivized to hand over apartment over to residents after x years, because all housing should be publicly held"
You're not wrong, but given the world we live in the incentive would be better. And I would say that's the sort of "non-reformist reform" that's liable to push towards the ideal, not appease and reinforce the status quo.
> That's like saying "landlords shouldn't be incentivized to hand over apartment over to residents after x years, because all housing should be publicly held"
> You're not wrong
"Not wrong" seems like a... generous... description of this viewpoint. Lots of places tried the system of "all housing is publicly held"; it was not a success.
Any site that tracks the "score" of your contributions and then makes your "score" visible on most pages is going to be about winnings whether that's the stated goal or not. That is a textbook way to gamify things.
Obviously this applies more to comments than to submissions but the comments are a large part of the user experience here so whether HN is "based on this premise of winning" boils down to a question of the importance of the comment section.
Dopamine feedback from imaginary points, and validation from mostly like minded peers makes users keep coming back to this website. Otherwise user retention would non-existent.
I think this points out that the semantics of trusting the header (which is still a part of the message) at all is flawed and leads to implementations getting it wrong and leaving gaps for attackers to exploit.
You instead need to throw most the board of directors of the insurance provider and device manufacturer in question into a Faraday cage, lock it, and walk away.
On a more serious note, this is a new world of crazy for me I wasn't aware of. I wonder how difficult it would be to push forged data back to the monitoring agency with physical access to the machine with an independent setup. Then, simply put your actual device in a Faraday cage so you can still use your device as needed, with insurance covering it, without insurance invading your privacy and likely using that data for other unscrupulous purposes as well.
Might we want to consider that medical insurance fraud is in fact a serious concern?
From prior work in the industry, durable medical equipment is one of the most targeted areas for scams.
Relatively high cost, amortized over an extended utilization time.
I'm not particularly surprised that insurance companies (and therefore manufacturers that are supplying them) include such features. It'd be borderline negligent from a financial perspective not to.
I think you are on the right track, but I would say that any payment that requires banks or card providers (or both) to act as agents of the exchange will ultimately have these qualities. It doesn't matter if you wrap it in a pretty bow and call it a clever name.
I think this is where crypto currency shines, as it doesn't require a deep stack of agents to facilitate a payments. It requires two parties (maybe a third for escrow), and money can move with less friction.
Intuitively, as a someone who uses C style languages, this becomes:
if(foo) doX(); doY();
Can someone confirm which intuition is correct?
I ask because, to me: it not being intuitive is a problem--even if it is not classified as ambiguous.
It being only contextually intuitive, also seems somewhat problematic--but maybe excusable if it is assumed you know some similar language going into it and it behaves similarly to that other language.
No idea what GP was trying to say, but the C style intuition is correct. The bug in that code is due to omitted brackets, it has nothing to do with semicolons/ASI.
I think I see what you're saying, but the context here was asking for cases where omitting semicolons causes non-obvious bugs. I mean:
if(x)
return
"foo"
clearly there's a bug there, but adding in semicolons wouldn't change the code's behavior. So it doesn't affect the "is it bad to omit semicolons?" debate either way.
I think in a country like the US, where news networks can push a political bias (not needing to give both sides of an issue equal coverage), without accountability, it requires consumers to do their own homework on issues. I guess the question is, why not optimize and cut the news out of the middle?
Does anyone know what they mean when they say that Apps will be sandboxed? It can't be similar if the phone is running a desktop OS masquerading as mobile OS.