That is because the terminology (and the keybindings) come from the Emacs tradition, not vim. Most shells come with “vim mode” as well, but at least in my experience, the dual mode editing paradigm of does not feel like a good fit for the shell.
You overestimate how much the rest of the world cares about data being sent to “chinese servers”, when all this while our data was being sent to “American servers” anyways.
I think OP's point is that sending your browsing data to a server, be it American or Chinese, isn't "no bs".
I see this recurrent feeling on HN that because the US does bad things we shouldn't care about other countries doing the same. I think we should care about all of them!
The feeling is that "no one" cares about it being sent to American servers, why should they suddenly care about it going to Chinese servers just because they're Chinese.
Not only that, USA is far more likely to send someone to kill you than china is. So between the 2 I'll take china (I'd prefer my data to not be sent to any foreign power).
Whataboutism (doesn't matter if another entity does it - if it's wrong, then pointing out another entity doing it is fallacious), redirection, and false dichotomy (you can care about the US and China doing it - for all you know the parent poster was in the EU and does care about both).
Nobody mentioned the US upstream of your comment until you did. This is obvious propaganda - one of the classic maneuvers in the PRC influence playbook is, when called out on anything, to try to implement whataboutism with the United States (even if it's not relevant, like here, which is equally sad and funny).
> No, because programs sending telemetry to the US is so routine that and pervasive that we don't even remark on it.
That's not a valid reason. Nice try, though.
> Now who's committing a whole catalogue of fallacies?
Calling a fallacious and manipulative comment that literally follows a country's propaganda playbook "propaganda" isn't a fallacy - it's just true.
It's extremely telling that you didn't comment on any of the actual points that I made, such as it being a false dichotomy and whataboutism - because you know that I'm right, and so you had to resort to insinuations and redirections yourself. Congratulations, you just proved me right.
The original comment was neither false dichotomy nor whataboutism. It was a simple point that the rest of the world is already used to their data being snooped by the US government. So apart from US exceptionalism, there is no particular reason they would be especially alarmed by the prospect of their data being sent to "Chinese servers".
What OP's saying is fundamentally true though? Unfortunately most people don't really care about privacy, regardless of whether it's going to an American company or a Chinese one.
Not exactly. Most US companies have a presence in Europe and so give at least an attempt to obey European laws. While the laws are different and not as strong, the US has privacy laws in place that will protect you. China might have some of those same laws - but they don't apply to the government at all (the US makes some attempt to have laws apply to the government)
That doesn't mean you should be happy with data in America, but China is worse.
Last I knew Opera still had a decent amount of engineering staff in Poland, and still had some in Sweden, both in the EU, plus still has some amount of staff in Norway, not in the EU but definitely in Europe.
That’s not to say their privacy story is fantastic, but they very much still have European operations.
> US has privacy laws in place that will protect you
They don't protect us at all. Thanks to Snowden, we all know that the US government has extremely sophisticated and wide-ranging ability to get access to any data we share with American companies.
Factually incorrect. US privacy laws pose a huge burden to US intelligence. The 4th amendment still applies. Warrants still exist.
> Thanks to Snowden, we all know that the US government has extremely sophisticated and wide-ranging ability to get access to any data we share with American companies.
Citation needed.
> And why so?
In the PRC, there are no privacy laws to protect you from the government. "Private" companies are an extension of the government and all of the larger ones are required to have a CCP party member on board to ensure that they are "aligned" with what the party wants. The party happily disappears dissidents at will, threatens dissidents in other countries, requires that all domestic companies provide encryption keys (or otherwise made encrypted data accessible) on demand with zero warrants or other legal protections, maintains the largest network of surveillance cameras in the world (several times more than the total number of those in the United States), and many more things.
This is extremely common knowledge, easily searchable online, and is factually and categorically different than anything the US, or any other Western country, does. Only the terminally ignorant or the propagandists believe that the PRC's surveillance is remotely similar to that of any western country - the available evidence comprehensively disproves that conspiracy theory.
> [T]he US has privacy laws in place that will protect you [...] (the US makes some attempt to have laws apply to the government)
I believe the US stance is that nobody outside the US is entitled to court relief against the US government regarding their privacy, and nobody outside the US and EU is entitled to any relief at all, even from the executive (the “Data Protection Review Court” non-court, formerly the “Privacy Shield Ombudsperson”). In the EU, there are some protections in some countries but for example the GDPR specifically does not apply to governments.
I mean, the Chinese government is worse on this, but the US is nevertheless really bad and a number of EU countries also suck to a remarkable extent. Until the US press starts dropping the “of Americans” from their latest surprised-Pikachu headlines on “mass government surveillance of Americans”, I’m unconvinced the situation will improve.
At least in India, most popular newspapers actually do this nowadays. Several full page ads including on the front page have become the norm.
It is mostly a function of how little the reader is willing to pay for content. When the price point is too low (which for online content is too low), publishers make their money by other means. It is not rocket science.
A lot of print publications used to do it, and many still do.
Print magazines make most of their money from ad sales, not subscriptions. A typical ratio is 60:40 ads vs editorial. Magazines like Vogue go >70% ads, and I'm fairly sure old issues of Byte and other computer magazines were in that ballpark.
The difference in print is that the ads are targeted, and even welcome. Many of the ads in old computer magazines were price lists and mini-brochures, and pre-web that was the only way to get that information to customers.
You also have the paid articles where 'journalist' interview some company ceo or influencer that happened to have given them a substantial amount of money.
I know Jenkins is not fashionable these days, but the warnings-ng plugin is perfect for solving this in a tool-independent way. :chefskiss:
The way it works is - the underlying linter tool flags all the warnings, and the plugin helps you keep track of when any particular issue was introduced. You can add a quality gate to fail the build if any new issue was added in a merge request.
I'm guessing that his 1st person description of the human sacrifices carried out by the Mayan and establishing a connection between those and the need to erase the culture that enabled them and that he - wrongly or not, we can't know anymore - saw as enabled by those books had some weight there...
The Spanish crown didn't have in mind to destroy other people books, but then again, they also didn't have in mind that they casually, recurrently and nonchalantly offered human sacrifices to their "gods".
Probably the order of priorities for the Spanish crown was books < human sacrifices.
> Browser memories let ChatGPT remember useful details from your web browsing to provide better responses and suggestions, while maintaining privacy and user control. Users can opt-in during setup or in Settings > Personalization > Reference browser memories.
> As you browse in Atlas, web content is summarized on our servers. We apply safety and sensitive data filters that are designed to keep out personally identifiable information (like government IDs, SSNs, bank account numbers, online credentials, account recovery content, and addresses), and private data like medical records and financial information. We block summaries altogether on certain sensitive websites (like adult sites).
So the actual content of every page you visit is sent to ChatGPT servers. That is WAY more invasive than anything Chrome does afaik.
From the article, individual video segments were 2-6 MB in size and SQS and Kinesis have a 1MB limit for individual records so they couldn’t have used either service directly. At least not without breaking their segments into even smaller chunks.
You're right, I didn't pay attention there. Still seems that there a many solutions better suited than S3. Probably a classic case of "We need an MVP fast, let's optimize later".
reply