This is the best phrasing of this concept that I remember having seen.
Proprietary software gives developers power over users. Typically, Developers seek this power in order to extract money from users (sometimes in reasonable amounts, other times not). Unfortunately, power is abused. By empowering users with the option to take control of their own technology, FLO software provides strong protection against abuse -- developers need to weigh user-hostile decisions against the possibility of a fork.
I have a working theory that any software used by programmers will eventually get excellent (or be replaced with something excellent). And everything else stays vaguely mediocre.
The tooling to allow non-programmers to edit data in postgres? Halfbaked.
Sound cancellation in macbooks for video calls? Fantastic.
The software bank tellers use? Garbage.
Github equivalent for non programmers (eg people with folders full of Word docs)? 404 not found.
Anyway, the fact that modern printer drivers are garbage should come as no surprise. Who amongst us cares enough to fix them? RMS was probably one of the last competent programmers who will bother writing clean, minimal printer drivers. I expect the world will become paperless before HP cleans up their act.
I have the same problem at the moment with my Wacom tablet - the hardware is great but the software is truly awful, and apparently it phones home regularly. Software for artists is unfortunately off the golden path.
Ah, the tell of someone who has never implemented printing.
Pagination across different paper sizes when content is dynamic/interactive and includes things like section headers that you need keep with text and images and tables that users expect to not split across pages with their custom choices of margins, page-numbers, page titles etc. So many other issues like ensuring monochrome prints are legible, implementing print previews etc.
Oh boy. Some might think implementing math from papers is hard but no, it's this sort of thing. You'll be fixing problems with it for the life-time of the product.
It seems like the driver should detect paper size, broadcast a compatible print area/capabilities to something above, and then stand by to make any dot it can in the allowed area.
Why would the hardware driver need to deal with pagination, layout, or print previews (beyond advertising capabilities accurately)?
I've always imagined that drivers are hard on the hardware side. It is really difficult to reliably place dots on a page with the requisite precision/reliability at the price-point to which we have all become accustomed.
If things are different now, it certainly was not during the brief time Wave was around.
In fact, in general, a human being must actually lay these things out by hand for print if that is the desired medium.
In the end, the user doesn't care. They want the printed page to be usable. If the browser makes it usable, excellent! If it doesn't, than the product is bad and an alternative must be found.
Sure, Google, being in control of Chrome, could implement a browser-level page layout engine.
Unfortunately, there is obviously no way to make a good general purpose layout engine, so that will never fly. Any site that wants to offer printing as a paid feautre must implement their own printable version, no question.
You'd need a native iPad app to capture and transmit pen events, and then something on the desktop side to receive the events and turn them into the equivalent wacom tablet events. How does wacom send tablet events to apps? Is it a named socket or something? It shouldn't be too hard to emulate. I wonder if anyone's made something like that in the app store.
Mind you, I'd much rather if Apple baked it into macos through Sidecar.
But Sidecar is also pretty half-baked and Apple is flakey about supporting features like in general, so who knows how it will all pan out.
I very purposefully position my monitor so that my main console window is viewed, with my head level. It is also horizontally centred on the mid-left of that console.
This is because most text, eg bash work, vi of files or code, rests there.
In this way, my head is not tilted down, or eyes tilted down constantly. My head is mostly centred, and looking straight ahead.
I find that elsewise, my body follows the constant downward look, either slouching or the neck bent forwards.
Why do you belief your monitor should be positioned, so you are looking downward constantly?
At the end of the day, if you’re finding that something helps to reduce long-term fatigue then it’s probably not too bad, but don’t forget that slouching in your chair feels good however it’s terrible ergonomically - this is similar. Comfortable short term, but not always long term.
All of these recommend at or slightly below eye level:
The search I ran in google was “monitor ergonomics gov”
Hence the top of the monitor being at eye level, is problematic. I think the best scenario is most-often level.
I wonder, I grew up before laptops and smartphones. These often result is down-gazing a lot. Hmm.
Most programmers rarely using office suites and prefer to use plain text editors. This has gone so far that developers prefer a sadistically under-featured file-format (.md) to office files.
Literally anyone with a computer that has a ASCII or Unicode compatible text editor can open a .md file and get useful info.
Even better, add a little bit of lightweight extra tooling, and now you've generated a nice looking html page, if you need to make something with fancier presentation.
The only thing I miss is the ability to embed images in the md file itself, but even that is not hard to work around.
Obviously I keep software on hand that can deal with docx/odf, but I'd really rather just keep it simple, due to the fact that I'm stupid.
.md files avoid the copy paste font/size mess by being plain text and rendering in the reader's choice of font. Bold, italics, hyperlinks and such are all explicitly added, easy to Ctrl + F for and aren't hidden behind finicky context menus as in standard word processors.
And doesn't have a proper spec. The best we have is https://commonmark.org
Hmmm... I think.. sometimes. There's also software that gets excellent, becomes big, becomes profitable, and squeezes out everything else. Then becomes mediocre. word and google docs?
It's certainly not non-existent.
(There's now browser based versions of MS Office apps that can simultaneously edit documents stored and automatically version controlled in SharePoint)
In some ways it was truly awful, to mention two examples:
- a reason for using it was to automatically apply Azure Information Protection to documents. All well and good until it turns out the mechanism can trivially be subverted, so trivially that we found out by accident by not following the exact login procedure.
- the usability makes is comparable to Oracle software. I have extensive experience with that too, but I can't say which is worse.
I seriously think the world would be better off if programming were seriously taught in schools, on a level equivalent to language, math, science, etc.
If we start with Scratch in early grade school and work up to C in high school, so many more people would be comfortable and efficient using computers, and would have the understanding necessary to understand the legislation of tech.
This would take a decade+ to pay off/have the bank tellers know to program, but it seems like the best long term plan.
I really like this phrasing. I'm not really an engineer. My code is mostly rough, but it is functional and does what I need it to. I don't program to build a skyscraper, I program so my computer can do a thing I need it to do.
It was about not being able to customize the behavior, lacking the access to source code, not about “crappiness.”
“ In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be able to freely modify the software they use.”
That is an anachronistic claim which sounds logical to the reader in 2020 but doesn’t match the environment of decades ago. The feature he added could have been based on, from perspective of the producer of the printer, completely non existing API.
That is, something available to different customers, but completely specific to the setup of every customer.
Additionally, it was the principle that mattered to RMS. One can often do some reverse engineering intervention to achieve the desired modification even based on the closed source, but it’s still against the conceptual advantages of working on the codebase which is by policy free. As in:
“Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.”
The principle works even once the network messaging API in some environment is standardized and starts to allow some, from that point on, “standard feature”.
They’re $30 with barely used toner cartridge, and have worked no effort on Mac / Linux / Windows for me.
Whoa, is this a thing? I know gov surveillance is in depth, but wow.
I'd love to read more, is there a good place to read about this?
Color laser printers can't be trusted.
Color inkjet printers probably can't either. Networked printers should not be granted internet access. The printer vendor is your enemy, not an ally.
I've never trusted printer vendors (or any vendors to be honest.), and I don't give printers inet access, but the yellow dots are news to me.
Developers rarely own the rights to their own code. It's actually about the power dynamic between capital and users. The Golden Rule ("He who has the gold, makes the rules") is nowhere more clear than in the software industry, with its lopsided clickthrough licenses and terms of service.
Unfortunately this isn't really true for large and complex FLOSS, e.g. web browsers. For a lot of the little user-hostile decisions they have taken, it would take me far more time to get the source and all its dependencies, figure out how to correctly build it (which can itself include a nontrivial toolchain with its own effort to set up), find where to make that tiny change I wanted to the source, and recompile and test; than to simply use a debugger to find the right place in the binary to modify directly.
Open-source doesn't necessarily mean easy to take control; and neither does closed source mean the opposite. I've been RE'ing for decades and wish more people knew about this valuable skill, because that's what gives you the true power to take control.
It is also true for web browsers; all it needs is one developer among the many thousands being able to build and distribute it.
> Open-source doesn't necessarily mean easy to take control
True, it should be more something like: "it won't be easy to use this source by yourself, but if the company decides to discontinue the product, you can still hire some developers to support and continue it, rather than throw in the trash everything you've based on it, which sometimes could mean your entire business". It rather makes hard for others to take away this control, a concept which is wonderfully explained by the GPL license document.
> I've been RE'ing for decades and wish more people knew about this valuable skill, because that's what gives you the true power to take control.
Agree 100% on this, but definitely not easy especially now that pretty much every damn product contains more horsepower and complexity than the Apollo missions computers.
However, if you have books, resources, examples etc. for mere mortals on the subject, I'd love to take a look at them. That topic would probably deserve a post by itself.
I reflect back and wonder why the systems I grew up with didn't have this capability built right in, like a keyboard interrupt in DOS that would pause execution and let you dive into the contents of memory, view the stack, or debug the decompiled version of a running program.
Maybe this kind of stuff just wasn't possible in the race to the bottom that was the 80s and 90s PC market, but as a child, I was really confused why I didn't have the tools necessary to "pop the hood" on anything other than BASIC programs—and that's assuming I was using a machine that had BASIC installed.
I'm sure the only thing I would have done with it at the time would have been to cheat at video games, defeat copy protection, and alter game dialog to be extremely crass, but I think it would have been extremely helpful in the development of my adult skill set.
On the other hand, it is possible, and great groups of people have for instance de-googled chrome and fixed ubuntu.
I want to learn. I've played around a bit with r2, doing a small patch on a unsupported piece of software, but that was nearly trivial.
Can you recommend any good places to get started?
That means you've already started. ;-)
I think it's hard to give recommendations regarding learning of RE in general, as I mainly do it a "scratch an itch" and "learn as you go" type of thing --- whether you need to interface with an unknown file format, change the behaviour of a piece of code, change a message in a UI, automate an aspect of a web app, etc. the exact knowledge you'll need will vary widely. However, in all those circumstances the basic idea is to gather knowledge about the target to get a vague understanding of how it works, and then dive in with the specific tools/knowledge you've gathered.
There's no liberty without the power to preserve it.
Clearly those are not actual second amendment lovers, they are deadly toy lovers, and therefor profess to love the second amendment.
There are those who actually believe in the ideals of the second amendment, the question is how many of them
A) Live in Portland/DC
B) Are willing to put their lives on the line for this.
I'd like to think that if I lived there I would be.
Yes, it is to protect liberty to do what you will with the software/source.
It is also to make sure that the developers of said software will be in a much more difficult situation when it comes to abusing the users of their software. Stallman talks about this as well.
Not that everything is a power dynamic, looking at life that way kills all your friends and family really quickly.
I think the worst i've ever experienced between floss and commercial software had to be the software to program the waterjet cnc at my last job. For some reason, half the menu items were in german, all the configuration was done in a text file where variables were a mix between english and german, the machine manufacturer stopped officially supporting the program and literally one person at their tech support office even knew how to use it and his knowledge had gotten pretty rusty. That program was an ugly, bug ridden, confusing mess that at one time cost lots of money.
According to the tech i talked to, it was written by one german guy who had a poor grasp of english, vanished years before and nobody knew how to contact him.
SigmaTech make SigmaNest which, as of version 1.7, I feel confident in highly recommending.
And they’ve put on an additional team member for tech support in my region and I can now confidently praise that aspect of their business too.
I’ll have a look at Alphacam.
For much of FLOSS software I would agree. However, almost any program I've used I would say is plenty adequate.
Of course, I would fall into those users you mention, so this probably doesn't mean much.
> Should we so desire, open source empowers us to create and run our own essential tools and services
This person is describing the goals of Free Software and community-driven projects.
"Open Source" merely refers to using an OSI-approved license, without any implication about empowering users and improving the power balance.
All joking aside, I recognize that this is strong language, but it certainly describes the tactics used.
Although obviously no one is in immediate physical danger, with the exception of medical equipment. Even that I'm not sure of, I've just heard hearsay.
As a result of this, anything can be reimplemented/replaced, if you or someone else have knowledge on how to do so. This in turn means that it is possible to escape from unethical services, thus the article.
This is an incredibly important insight. When technologically illiterate people have difficulties with a gadget, it is extremely common that you can trace their difficulties back to their assumption that the workings of the gadget are magic: they don't attempt to form any kind of mental model for how the device might work, and end up making impossible and contradictory assumptions about it. Even an incorrect mental model would be more useful, because you'd be more conscious of making predictions and realizing that your predictions are wrong for a reason when the machine doesn't respond as expected.
Legal or not, you can always take a disassembler to a binary and find out the truth, just like you can do the same to other devices and understand their workings much like what the "true scientists" do. Crackers and the security industry have been doing that for decades. PC magazines of the 80s and early 90s even told you how to patch your own software --- without source --- to accomplish certain things like fixing bugs or changing "annoyances".
I often wonder what the state of software would be like if Stallman emphasised the right to inspect and modify regardless of source code availability; perhaps there would be far less open-source projects, but people would have a much more intimate familiarity with how computers work in general.
If I can modify the binary, I don't need the source. Especially for large projects, where trying to figure out how to compile the exact same binary I already have and know works, along with its massive tree of dependencies, can be even more difficult compared to just opening it in a hex editor and patching a few bytes.
 It seems computer scientists mainly focus on construction unlike physicists, biologists, and chemists who focus on analysis first.
I still think open source is an important effort, editing/reading source code will always be more efficient then reverse engineering and modifying the binary.
That being said, I agree with much of what you say, and I am working on learning re/binary patching. Are there any good resources you could recommend?
> The bad news is as I tried to create an account on Strava, all sorts of warning bells went off. The website is full of dark patterns, and when I clicked to deny Strava access to my health-related data, I was met with this tricky series dialog boxes
I noticed that most apps on the App Store all seem to want you to create an account. I get that that's how they primarily operate but I'm put off by it.
This might be a controversial opinion but I like that my runs with my Apple Watch are recorded in iOS on-device, without needing to use any of these third-party apps. And if you still want to share or even backup your runs, you can use apps like HealthFit¹ or RunGap² to export FIT files that contain GPS points and heart rate data, or export them directly via API to the service you want. If you _really_ want to DIY, you can write some scripts that extract them from the SQLite files in your iOS backups. But by default, everything is local only and you have the choice to do whatever you want with the data.
If you like his work .... you could support him by subscribing to his channel perhaps.
If you have an old Android phone laying around that can run at least android 5/6, there's lots of good tracking applications that can run persistently and create a .gpx file written to disk in a location of your choice under /sdcard/. May not even be necessary to purchase a smart watch if you don't want heart rate.
I recommend this one: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mendhak.gp...
One of the things I particularly like about that app is that it's fully configurable for how often you want it to get a GPS fix (has a direct impact on battery life), what filename prefix to create and where to create it, whether to create a new file every day or every session, and many other toggles and knobs in the options.
It lets you log with cell tower but fall back to GPS if the accuracy is poor. Like walrus01 says, it's very configurable in how accurate you want it to be versus battery usage, or if you want to optimize it some way (like not record if it hasn't been moving).
While there were monthly crashes in the first two years I used it, the past 5 years it's been rock solid (running 24/7 with maybe one or two crashes for basically 5 years). You don't want to discover that one day the app hasn't been logging data for the past couple days. In comparison, the Android OS probably crashes about once a month for me.
It can automatically upload to various cloud storage places (Dropbox, Google Drive, but even FTP) so you can generate charts on a server with a script.
Truly open source, low battery usage, saves in multiple file formats, and the developer is active on Github with issues. Making a background mobile app is not easy because Android is constantly trying to reduce background battery drain or background process spyware.
Shout out to couple of smartwatch projects, which falls inline with the ethos of the author and anyone who agrees with it.
AsteroidOS - open-source linux based smartwatch firmware. Nice UI/UX, Wayland, good number of hardware support including MTK6580 chipset based inexpensive watches. In my tests about a year back, although the watch with AsteroidOS itself was usable, the sync with the android app was unreliable and could be due to android itself or manufacturer's kill-policy.
PineTime - $24.99, completely accessible, several RTOSes being built, Apps in Rust,Python etc.
Has anyone got this?
I hope that the community will improve the software issues and that they will come up with a nicer hardware. Espruino on PineTime would be perfect.
It seems to ship directly from UK, Is it made completely in UK? So may be that explains double the price than other nRF52832 watches.
>doesn't have an hardware step counter
Did you buy an earlier version? Buy page lists pedometer.
>Dislikes: it's big, very big, and ugly
Ah! Where tech forgets fashion again...Google Glass(Gulp).
The page says there's a pedometer but if you look at the datasheet of the accelerometer there isn't . So it's computed in software (it's inside Espruino) but it's really basic. I have proposed Gordon, the author, an open source algorithm which I developed with some students (Oxford step counter), and he seems interested, but it takes some time to integrate and calibrate so, AFAIK, it's not there yet.
About the size, I don't really mind, it's quirky, but it definitely doesn't follow the latest trends in terms of fashion...
Garmin app's insistence on always needing a connection to their servers has always been bothersome, but now that the servers are fubared, it turns out that I can't even get the data off the tracker and onto an iPhone, because that too somehow needs a server connection. Finding an alternative had suddenly became a high priority task.
If you're looking to see inside the FIT files, here's my (unmaintained, single-purpose) repo for doing so (a wrapper to a perl library by Kiyokazu Suto that does all the work).
Using it, I've been able to parse the output from a VivoSmart HR and a Fenix 3HR. I was happy to see that the HN-linked article had gpsbabel support; I haven't yet checked to see whether gpsbabel extracts all the other channels, too.
There are FIT files for 24-hr data in addition to activities; the 24-hr data are among the most interesting to me.
Garmin makes really great hardware -- I hope that this incident spurs them to open the SDK and firmware further to improve the resilience of their products.
This outage, ironically, highlights that strength. One can hope that Garmin is reminded of how valuable this interoperability is after this event and continues their commitment to it :)
For whatever reason I assumed that the cable with its funny looking 4-contact clip was used just for charging the tracker.
Gotta say, this looks very promising. Thanks for the tip.
I was thinking of one day editing the apps for wearables to direct them my own server, and then setting up a basic CRUD-like endpoint server to keep discontinued cloud-based wearables from becoming garbage by allowing them to have basic functionality. But haven't had the time, and would have to look into the legality of it first.
- anything to prevent the creation of more e-waste is much appreciated
- if you distribute only binary patches/diffs, you won't be in violation of distributing other's copyrighted IP
- don't let anyone tell you what you can or cannot do with the hardware you own
- https://github.com/mjsir911/gadgetbridge (mine)
They're also on Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/!KlgIJeiotNGZkxSqRi:matrix.org
In fact I'm still using it, from my Mi Band 3, to the Mi Band 4 and now the Amazfit Bip.
The folks behind it are doing a great job, and I'm glad they're doing it.
I was very pleased to discovered an open-source utility called gpsbabel (thank you gpsbabel! I donated!) that can unpack Garmin’s semi-(?)proprietary “.FIT” file format into the interoperable “.GPX” format.
...and how do you think that utility was created? They probably didn't have access to Garmin's source code or documentation for the format. They just "figured it out". Furthermore, whether that utility is open-source doesn't seem to matter here: it's just doing a format conversion.
but it was mostly a matter of finding the right open-source pieces and gluing them together with Python
Replace "open-source" with "freely usable", and the author would've probably been able to accomplish the same end-goal. Gluing together existing software, treating the pieces as black boxes, doesn't show off any advantages of open-source at all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against open-source; I'm just against this rising glorification of it as somehow a be-all and end-all of software freedom. What is worth praise, however, is the rising availability of freely usable software.
To go back to the author's first point, the best way to not "convince ourselves that technology is magic" is to start with a comprehensive low-level education: Computers are just dumb machines executing sequences of instructions, and in a non-hostile environment, you get to choose precisely what instructions they execute.
I plugged my watch's charging cable into a USB port on my Linux rig (works the same for windows). Navigated to GARMIN. And immediately saw .FIT files.
To get to your activities, navigate to GARMIN->ACTIVITY. You should be able to see when the files were created, so you can figure out which one you want to view. Each is it's own activity.
Next you need a FIT file parser. I'm a NodeJS guy, so I did an NPM search and found "fit-file-parser". I made a quick project, and wrote out the code necessary.
In all of five minutes I had a JSON object with my run.
Maybe I should engineer a simple, single page HTML app to open, parse, and render the statistics? I feel like when I get done Connect will be back online and this will be an afterthought :P.
I still have my Fitbit data and even my old Google location history backed up. I wish more projects focused on importing from takeouts of proprietary services.
I could just go run in the woods in the dark, no-one would know right? And it's highly unlikely I'd be seen at night (a Spanish friend of mine ended up hiking several nights a week in the dark so he wouldn't be seen as he was going stir crazy being trapped inside).
But my GPS data would be uploaded to the cloud! They would know! There would be evidence, fed to the NSA! Would I hear their standard issue kicking in my door!
Of course I could just leave the Garmin at home, but I like my GPS and stats. So now I know how I can pull the data off watch, process it myself and remove it before it can be synced!
/s (a little bit)
Tomorrow: We need everything to be cloud-only for everyone's safety.
I dont see a difference between what Garmin and Strava do to your data. Ultimately, Strava is trying to provide you some more insights using your health data. It ultimately depends whether you want it or not. Isn't this the same with all the services these days?
If this were all, they wouldn't need dark patterns to manipulat you into giving them their health data even though you actually want something completely different from the service.
Do the users know this as well?
Skimming Strava's homepage, all the UI that is shown is either generic social network stuff or about presenting location data - and this was also what OP expected the service to do.
The only text on the page that could imply health data being used are general statements about how Strava can "analyze your performance" and help you getting better.
There are no mentions at all about particular health data points such as heart rate. (But plenty of mention of location data points such as position, elevation or speed)
This does not indicate at all that collecting and analyzing health data is the main thing that Strava does.
> It's not a dark pattern, ...
Putting a user setting behind three redundant confirmation screens with confusing options is a dark pattern no matter the context.
Even there, it's just this one image and the mention of "analyzing performance", the rest of the page describes the social network and location tracking aspects.
I'm not disputing that Strava offers services that analyze your health data. They clearly do and this wouldn't be a problem by itself. (If they don't pass on the data)
What I find disingenuous is that the marketing paints this as an optional feature that you could activate in addition to the main areas "location tracking" and "sports/health-focused social networking" - however, the actual sign-up flow (according to the OP) seems to go from a different premise: That analyzing health data is actually the core functionality of the site.
If they were marketing this as a site where you can analyze your health data, all would be fine. But then you could just make providing health data access a mandatory step of sign-up - users probably wouldn't be surprised since the service was obviously useless without access.
But pretending you're a general health/sporting portal with optional analysis functionality, then nagging the user into giving you access is shady.
Note: I didn't verify that the sign-up flow is still like this, so they might have shifted from being health focused when OP tried to sign up to being located focused now, I don't know. This would be better, even though it's not clear to me why they would have needed to nag in the first place.
No, Strava is trying to monetize my data. That I can get some insights from their monetization attempts is incidental.
I'm not sure this is entirely true though, I've seen hardware companies sell out their users for a few bucks. Likewise, Strava has ways to make money from users—via Strava Premium services.
I have no idea how well these particular companies handle data specifically so it's hard to say.
So, it's not like the old meme about one being the product if one doesn't pay...
> You shouldn't spread false information.
Curious about which part of my post you think is false. Perhaps you didn’t read my entire post and just blindly posted before you got the the second paragraph?
And this has been one of the reasons I haven't gone to smart-watches (the other is accuracy in terrain). You have to have the app on your phone and pair them together. Even if that workflow is still possible (as demonstrated by the article, it is a fall-back), the default is to require cloud processing. I don't want my tracks stored somewhere else, and even less so if there's a chance of accidentally sharing them publicly. I guess I don't get the sports stats (heart-rate, etc), but that's a small price to pay.
I'm glad I'm not the only one considering these warning signs, but also puzzled why not everybody thinks like that, especially with services that could hold your data hostage. Is it a lack of education, lack of care or careful risk/benefit analysis?
Has this changed at all? I love the idea of measuring myself in various ways but I want real-time and private access to my data.
All the "modern" companies will give you an API access, a token and even API wrapper code in many languages in an instant. Garmin is very old-school here.
Not sure about linux, but I've heard Mac requires some third party software.
Edit: apparently some Garmin watches only support Media Transfer Protocol:
For these you have to use an MTP client on macOS such as Android File Transfer.
* rawcdn.githack.com (also a cookie from here)
Not quite the "single html file, no analytics, no cookies" that was promised.
The mapping tool outputs a single html file, that relies on stuff from other servers. But all they have to deal with is the single file (if you view source, the exercise data is stored in the file).
It's really not an interesting discussion. Maybe they could have used a better description, but it's not confusing or particularly misleading.
There are soo many ways to look st data. I use Garmin Connect, Training Peaks, Strava, Elevate. They all have something the other misses. Making a something myself tailored for me would be cool.
Edit: the reason I'm downplaying the attack on Strava, is that it doesn't really know that much. It knows the explicit activities synced, and whatever it can derive from that (where I live and work for instance). But Garmin, Polar, Fitbit etc knows sooo much more. My pulse and movements during the whole day which can be used to corroborate lots of stuff, when I sleep etc.
As for "unsubstatiated": part of it is _well_ substantiated: his screenshots clearly demonstrate Strava's questionable interface choices. :-)
The take that asking a question and verifying the decision twice isn't a "dark pattern" it's knowing that people often don't fully read. A true dark pattern is hiding the "confirm" button or swapping primary/secondary.
Also the part about "make fat returns by monetizing my private data, including my health information" is 100% unfounded. Strava monetizes VERY well off of adding additional features for subscribers like many services these days. I've been using Strava for a month free, and they do a really great balance of teasing the features you're missing out on without being too pushy.
I also don't see how any of it is "unsubstantiated".
> the reason I'm downplaying the attack on Strava, is that it doesn't really know that much
Oh so they only steal a little bit of the cash I have with me, not the whole thing. That's great!
Anyways, what one uploads to Strava is what one wants to share and have analyzed. If you don't give them permission to hold your health data, then it's no point in using the service. It's not really a dark pattern. It's not like it collects stuff about you in the background, one explicitly has to sync activities there. So you are wrong, they're not stealing a shit.
(Whether or not manipulation was going on can be argued. I made my point in the other subthread)
I agree though that other services collect more stuff and that services like this can be very useful if you're still in control. (As far as the usefulness vs risk of cloud services goes - that is after all the whole topic of this thread. Also, even the most well-meaning business can be hacked.)