This is a lesson in capitalism. It’s so much more profitable to ignore small users bases when you can just tell them to “try switching to Chrome”.
I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS.
Other browser engines can exist. JIT has to be the system’s. Others can use Apple’s JavascriptCore to gain access to it and do whatever they want on top.
> I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS.
It sounds like capitalism has so far saved us from a Chrome monopoly, then.
To nitpick, you mean "unfettered capitalism". As in no government involvement. Which has the identical problem to unfettered anarchy: coalitions form, creating governments. Since many markets have network effects (e.g. bulk purchasing gives lower price per unit) a monopoly tends to be one of the possible steady state solutions. But any monopoly can choose to become a governor of their market, being able to impose regulation even through means other than government (e.g. pull resources, poach, lawsuits, or even decide to operate at a loss until the competition is dead (i.e. "Silicon Valley Strategy").
I just mention this because it's not a problem exactly limited to capitalism. It's a problem that exists in many forms of government and economics (like socialism). It just relies on asymmetric power
Yup. It's quite obvious that such unfettered, true capitalism quickly decays to the good ol' rule of warlords.
There should be a name for this kind of fallacy, where you look at a snapshot of a dynamic system (or worse, at initial conditions), and reason from them as if they were fixed - where even mentally simulating that system a few time steps into the future makes immediately apparent that the conditions mutate and results are vastly different than expected.
I was going to call this anecdotal evidence based on it never appearing in the top 100 (or so) Nielson rated TV shows for a year, based on the lists for 1984-1995 here[0].
However, it looks like PBS never signed up for Nielson until 2009, so we have limited/no public data on viewership of The Joy of Painting (or Sesame Street, etc for that matter).
There's a lot of TV shows out there, even in the 80s and 90s, and plenty of ways for celebrities to have their image and reputation bolstered. Ratings aren't reliable in trying to measure someone's notoriety.
Growing up in the late 80s/90s, and mostly outside of the US, I can't remember a time when I didn't know who Bob Ross was.
Did you grow up wealthy in the 80s? Most people didn’t have cable television back then, it was comparatively expensive and not available outside major metropolitan areas. Most people only had a half dozen TV channels or so, and sometimes Bob Ross was the only thing on TV worth watching. Everyone knew who he was.
We were not rich but had basic cable since 1979 or so. Maybe California was ahead on that front. My memory is that it only cost perhaps $10 a month in the 80s.
My experience was that accidentally tuning into Joy of Painting for about 45 seconds was enough to completely hook me (although I was not fully aware of this at the time).
There was a lot less tv in the 80s. If you didn’t have cable, then you just had a handful of channels. I didn’t watch Joy of Painting, but it was pretty hard not to notice the painting Afro guy when flipping through the extremely limited number of channels most people had access to.
Using a user account to do this is still considered risky since any automated API usage by a non-bot user is against TOS, and they have heuristics (maybe now ML-based heuristics) for banning accounts for 'things that "don't look like what our official client does"'[0].
This is why I use a dedicated account to scrape servers, since I unfortunately need my main to interact with(/run) communities unavailable elsewhere.
FWIW, I haven't exactly been careful with it (oftentimes scraping 2 servers at once, and downloading all attachments) and have never had an account get banned.
The only time I got 'banned' in any capacity was when I hammered the internal JSON API to get information about server's invite links, and even then it was only an automated IP ban from Cloudflare for a couple days. Although, it was an unauthenticated API.
This is technically the case - I believe the existence of private channels is still sent to the client (eg. their snowflake IDs, which also reveal creation date) but the channel names are no longer sent as well.
E2EE is definitely only possible in DMs (there's no chance for servers/guilds), but the cat is out of the bag in terms of user expectations on how DMs work.
So many users expect their entire decade+ history of DM contents, attachments included, to be available wherever they are and on any device, gated only by having their login/2fa or passkey. Switching to E2EE would be a major overhaul of that expectation, and it would be a huge task to train users to now keep their encryption key safe, backed up, and available across multiple devices.
Although, mostly unrelated, is that they absolutely are going to have to cull old attachments eventually. There are attachments sitting in their GCP buckets that haven't been accessed since 2015. I'm sure their storage bill is in at least a few million a month at this point, even if most is marked coldline.
e2ee works fine for Signal group chats; there is no reason it couldn’t be implemented on Discord group chats.
That’s not the issue. The issue is that Discord believes they deliver value through aggressively censoring their platform. e2ee prevents that.
e2ee also doesn’t prevent a user from storing their long term keys on the server to be retrieved on new devices and decrypted locally so they can access message history. e2ee does not require PFS.
User bots (including hacked clients) are officially banned by the TOS, which addresses that concern.
The only acceptable API usage is via bots that server owners choose to invite. And while it might be legally OK (if the bot's own TOS says it), I promise no server owner is expecting an invited bot to slurp up every message for use in a data set, whether that be for academic purposes or a potential stalking/"dirt" database.
I highly doubt this is the most ethical instance of data collection.
IIRC data slurping (for exporting) is also not allowed bot usage.
> B. API Data Sharing & Retention
> You will not share API Data with any third party, except in the following circumstances, subject to compliance with the Terms and applicable laws and regulations: (i) with a Service Provider; (ii) to the extent required under applicable laws or regulations; and (iii) when a user of your Application expressly directs you to share their API Data with the third party (and you will provide us proof thereof upon request).
Anubis is new, so there may not have been foresight to implement a solver to get around it. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the botnet actor is using vended software, not making it themselves to where they could quickly implement a solver to continue their attack.
Goes into pretty good detail about DOGE employees going out of their way to obscure their activity on NLRB's Azure account. Surely a plus for transparency in government.
> Within minutes after DOGE accessed the NLRB's systems, someone with an IP address in Russia started trying to log in, according to Berulis' disclosure. The attempts were "near real-time," according to the disclosure. Those attempts were blocked, but they were especially alarming. Whoever was attempting to log in was using one of the newly created DOGE accounts — and the person had the correct username and password, according to Berulis.
I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS.
reply