If I remember correctly I got a call from GMG, 15 years ago, to confirm a purchase of … $15 game key. Maybe Google Ads have such great deal with card acquirers they don't care about fraud/chargeback rate. Or it is the other way around, the amount of fraudulent spending is so high they don't even try fighting it.
> maybe I just don't understand how world operates
Amazon decided friction during purchase is more costly than asking for CVV/CVC. For better or worse (like in case of Ford Pinto) corporations can count their money.
All previous similar issues got hand waved with "Mozilla has to make money somehow".
I am afraid one day remaining users will decide that Chromium based browsers provide a better experience in most use cases, and now have same privacy guarantees as Firefox. Looking at market share maybe that had already happened and pragmatism won over ideology, and we will all suffer the consequences of such monoculture.
These comments are so annoying and they pop up on literally any news Mozilla releases. Like… ever.
No, Firefox is not malware because it includes an OPTIONAL feature. Yes, chrome is 100x worse than Firefox when it comes to data privacy. Yes, Firefox works in 99.9999% of websites. Yes, the performance of Firefox is about the same as chrome.
Nobody who seriously gives even a single fuck about privacy is going to be dropping Firefox because of this. Because that’s stupid.
The only conclusion, then, is that people who are dropping Firefox because of this don’t care about privacy at all, and just want an excuse to use chrome. But I guess saying “well I like chrome” is too much, so we just lie instead.
It’s fine to use chrome. It IS NOT fine to lie through your teeth and claim you use chrome because Firefox is just as bad for privacy.
Because it’s not, and not a single person would drop Firefox for that reason. You just want to use chrome. So do that, and stop shitting on Firefox as if Mozilla implementing 0.01% of the malware chrome has is the end of the world.
Not a fan of JEP-531, looks the repeat of Optional. Are we really so afraid of extending syntax that we are going to add a class instead of field modifier?
private static final Logger log = Logger.getLogger(Whatever.class);
This was already verbose enough that Lombok has @Log4j for it, adding `lazy` keyword in front of `final` won't make it any worse.
Do people just not type fast, ignorant of how IDEs work, or what exactly is the deal? I'd rather have the clarity of everything above. It tells me exactly what I need to know and what I can do with it.
I mean, thanks to crazy data center over-investment there is real chance that Oracle will need to sell some of their assets. Somehow I can't imagine many potential buyers that would be a good custodian of Java.
> but unless you're defending against some sort of denial of service attack, in practice it rarely matters.
That "rarely" contains most sites/webservices. Before programming languages started defending against it by applying randomization (and sometimes replacing degraded maps/buckets with treemaps) it was a real threat. I remember people were able to trigger DoS either by specially crafted query string params or HTTP headers. After all both are shoved into some kind of map by frameworks, before request is even passed to application code.
How does handling support tickets/bugs work with such approach? If LLM sometimes can't handle it - do I have to beg it to keep trying, as humans are no longer an viable fallback?
The way I've seen it work is basically pointing an agent directly to the ticket, or via a proxy description.
There's a good chance that if the agent cannot handle it, a human wouldn't be figuring it out either, without additional context. That context would be the sort of only-Joe-knows-how-it-works, so perhaps something worth addressing in any case.
Endless stream of "Your review was removed - place was closed down" is a interesting reward for reviewing places. I still wonder how can a beach just stop existing.
Will it ever work until a TPM like module is directly integrated into camera sensor? Older attempts of Nikon and Canon got broken, same had happened with C2PA implementation for Android - if it gets anywhere close to CPU it is insecure.
Yes, presumably there will be a cat and mouse game until the entire system including all peripherals has been brought into the trusted computing base, either physically or logically (usually with secured/authenticated communication). This has been the case for all applications of trusted computing.
Security is never a binary property, however, and can usually be better expressed in terms of how expensive it would be to subvert a given mechanism. "This image is either authentic or would have cost at least $x to fake" is already much more useful than nothing at all even without $x trending to infinity.
And I still can't go over how this title looks like draft version with placeholder, published a bit too fast. How could anyone thing a single letter is good choice for an company/service name?
> How could anyone thing a single letter is good choice for an company/service name
In this case, Musk is stuck being his 12 year old self and carrying a 30 year old obsession to use this very cool naming for his "everything company", after losing that name along with him leaving PayPal. He finally got the chance.
> maybe I just don't understand how world operates Amazon decided friction during purchase is more costly than asking for CVV/CVC. For better or worse (like in case of Ford Pinto) corporations can count their money.
reply