• 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle





  • Security is hard. Especially at the scale of those companies. Since they are big, they get a lot more hacking attempts. Makes more sense for bad actors to attack someone with millions of customers than your mom & pop store that might have hundreds, if everything being equal.

    More and more people and compa ies wants to store things “in the cloud”, (read: someone else’s server). It is for the most part a good thing as it makes it easier to access, but it also opens up bigger and other attack vectors.

    So, I think the number of breeches will only increase. Not always because the companies have bad security (though sometimes it is 100% that), but also because the attack vectors keep growing due to changed business decisions and user preferences.



  • I think a better, but still not perfect, way to define it would be “This person wants to do X, but can’t support him/her/itself doing it.”

    Of course, if you are already rich it doesn’t matter and then it is a bad metric (one of the reasons it isn’t perfect.) However, I think it is a better way to define it. Someone writing a few books as a hobby and then stops are not a failed writer, but someone that wants to be a writer but just can’t support it is.

    Basically I think the intent matters, but that is impossible to measure (and people lie about it). So being able to do it as a profession is an ok metric.


  • Most of those cookie banners are not even needed, you only need them for tracking cookie, not login and session cookies. But of course everyone decided it is just easier to nag all the users with a big splash screen.

    A lot of them are not even doing it right, you are not allowed to hint the user that accept all is the “correct” choice by having it in a different color than the others. And being able to say no to all shouls be as easy as accepting all, often it isn’t.

    Basically, cookie banners are usually not needed and when they are they are most often incorrectlt designed (not by accident).


  • The problem is that it is almost always just one lf them. Let’s say that v0.20 is called “Fuck Spez” and v0.21 is called “YouKnowWhatFuckMuskToo”.

    Most people are going to refer to them by either the number or the name, almost never are both used. The biggest problem with names is that they are rarely sortable (google did it with android, for a bit but not anymore), so in the future it is hard to know which is which without resorting to looking at a list of releases.

    For example, in the future when we are on v0.30 someone might say “ah, but this has been an issue since “Fuck Spez”.” And then most likely you have to look it up to know what they are talking about. If we coulld force everyone to alwaya write “version “Fuck Spez” (v0.20)” then it would be great, but that never happens.

    I personally prefer just semantic versioning for this reason.



  • Tanoh@lemmy.worldtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlThoughts on Cryptocurrency?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    The original idea was to take back control of our money from greedy and corrupt banks and politicians. Very very very few people use it as that now though. Most just see it as a get rich quick scheme.

    As we are in the privacy sublemmy: All of the privacy issues have already been solved, those that keep saying that it is a log of everyone you ever paid kept forever have no idea what they are talking about. Just simple thing like that you should (almost) never use an address twice removes a lot of the privacy concerns. There are also other ways to obfuscate and stay anonymous.






  • Tanoh@lemmy.worldtoFirefox@lemmy.mlHow about no?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    There are quite a lot of quirks with how browser (or rather rendering engines) interpret CSS, and in quite a few places the spec is ambiguous. So there is no “correct” way of implementing it.

    But, this is either just them being lazy or bad mangement.