which is supposed to enforce to run apps in secured phones
The point of the Google Play Integrity API is to ensure that the user is not in control of their phone, but that one of a small number of megacorps are in control.
Can the user pull their data out of apps? Not acceptable. Can the user access the app file itself? Not acceptable. Can the user modify apps? Not acceptable.
Basically it ensures that the user has no control over their own computing.
Most particularly they generally pretend that nothing on the web is encrypted whereas in practice HTTPS is nearly universal at this point.
We did it not because it was easy, but because we thought it would be easy.
Yes. As this is a workstation the memory use is highly variable, >95% of the time I would probably barely notice having 32GiB. But other times it is a huge performance win to have that capacity available. Sometimes I am compiling lots of stuff and 32 compilers running + ample disk cache is very important. Other times I am processing lots of data and other times I am running a few VMs.
It is a bit of a luxury. I think if I was on a tighter budget I would have gone for 64GiB. However the price difference wasn’t that much and at least a handful of times I have been quite happy to have that capacity available. And worst case I just have everything sitting in disk cache after a warm up which is a small performance win on every small task.
I have enough disk space.
Plus my /tmp is a ramdisk and sometimes I compile large things in there (Firefox) so it is nice to let it be flushed out to disk if there are more important uses for that RAM than holding a file that most likely won’t be read again.
There are three parts to the whole push system.
My point is that 1 is the core and already available across devices including over Google’s push notification system and making custom push servers is very easy. It would make sense to keep that interface, but provide alternatives to 2 and 3. This way browsers can use the JS API for 2 and 3, but other apps can use a different API. The push server and the app server can remain identical across browsers, apps and anything else. This provides compatibility with the currently reigning system, the ability to provide tiny shims for people who don’t want to self host and still maintains the option to fully self host as desired.
% free -h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 125Gi 15Gi 90Gi 523Mi 22Gi 110Gi
Swap: 63Gi 0B 63Gi
I’ll use it eventually. Just gotta let the disk cache warm up.
IMHO UnifiedPush is just a poor re-implementation of WebPush which is an open and distributed standard that supports (and in the browser requires, so support is universal) E2EE.
UnifiedPush would be better as a framework for WebPush providers and a client API. But use the same protocol and backends as WebPush (as how to get a WebPush endpoint is defined as a JS API in browsers, would would need to be adapted).
Why WASM? It seems to me that the attack surface of WASM is negligible compared to JavaScript (and IIUC disabling JavaScript will also disable WASM).
Third-party frames is definitely a good way to reduce your attack surface though. Ad embeds are often used to distribute exploits.
I paid for GPM for quite a while. I then started working at Google and beta tested YouTube Music from very early on and gave lots of feedback about how it sucked. When they shut down GPM I cancelled my YouTube Premium membership and installed an ad blocker. Not just YTM but so many things about YouTube were getting worse and worse and I couldn’t find it in myself to keep paying for a service that kept removing features.
Yes, but in my experience it is pretty trash. Unlike Google Play Music which matched the music to known tracks and shuffled it in with recommended playlists and other features on YouTube Music the uploaded songs are basically completely isolated. At that point why use a streaming service?
What are you running MS-DOS? laughs in multi-tasking.
I just drag my vi terminals to another workspace and launch a new editor.
https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat/issues/444 suggests otherwise. Do you have any information about multi-device support.
This isn’t how YouTube has streamed videos for many, many years.
Most video and live streams work by serving a sequence of small self-contained video files (often in the 1-5s range). Sometimes audio is also separate files (avoids duplication as you often use the same audio for all video qualities as well as enables audio-only streaming). This is done for a few reasons but primarily to allow quite seamless switching between quality levels on-the-fly.
Inserting ads in a stream like this is trivial. You just add a few ad chunks between the regular video chunks. The only real complication is that the ad needs to start at a chunk boundary. (And if you want it to be hard to detect you probably want the length of the ad to be a multiple of the regular chunk size). There is no re-encoding or other processing required at all. Just update the “playlist” (the list of chunks in the video) and the player will play the ad without knowing that it is “different” from the rest of the chunks.
That is a pretty weak argument. The issues are minor and in a library that people are moving off of to a better build and stronger validated library. Yes, it should have been like that in the first place, but the problem is minor and being addressed.
I would look more to the various features of Matrix that aren’t encrypted like room names, topics, reactions, … and not to mention the oodles of unencrypted metadata. I really wouldn’t call Matrix a high-privacy system.
I like Matrix and use it regularly, but it definitely doesn’t have a privacy-first mindset like Signal does. I’m hoping that this improves over time, but without a strong privacy first leadership it seems unlikely to happen.
Simplex doesn’t support mutli-device. That’s a deal breaker for me. I do 90% of my messaging at my desktop but also want to be able to chat on the go. Using my laptop on the couch is also fairly convenient.
I mean it is always better to have more open source. But the point of the multi-hop system is that you don’t need to trust the server. Even if the server was open source:
The open source client is enough to verify this and the security of the whole scheme.
Mullvad is one of the best options if you care about privacy. They take privacy seriously, both on their side and pushing users towards private options. They also support fully anonymous payments. Their price is also incredibly reasonable.
I’m actually working on a VPN product as well. It is a multi-hop system so that we can’t track you. But it isn’t publicly available yet, so in the meantime I happily recommend Mullvad.
To be fair this actually provides a very high level of security? At least in my experience with AIB (in Ireland) you needed to enter the amount of the transactions and some other core details (maybe part of the recipient’s account number? can’t quite recall). Then you entered your PIN. This signed the transaction which provides very strong verification that you (via the PIN) authorize the specific transaction via a trusted device that is very unlikely to be compromised (unless you give someone physical access to it).
It is obviously quite inconvenient. But provides a huge level of security. Unlike this Safety Net crap which is currently quite easy to bypass.