This seems incredibly interesting, but the idea of a ‘general purpose syncing service’, in the way he describes it, makes my head scream’security concern’. In general the way it’s described the format is not fixed for these services so your data might as well be encrypted in any arbitrary way I think?

But knowing this wouldn’t this kind of general purpose syncing service need some way of identifying what data it is even syncing? Unless you encooperate something grand like the signal protocol (as in encrypted anonymous messaging) you d always run a security risk if the service you use for syncing is not self-controlled?

If anyone has more insight on this I’d be very interested, it seems like a very good concept.

It sounds to me like anything other than p2p local syncing with some protocol is a confidentiality no-go.

This is what I had in mind as well; If you had to how would you add a beamer to this that could use your jellyfin/plex server?

Ideally I’d want a pi or mini pc behind the beamer that I can switch on/off remotely so that part is not always on

Okay I never knew that, I would also accept tips for setting up a star trek beamer though xD

Beg? Or am I misunderstanding this?

Anon feels more manly when he is handling his cats feces?

I think you accidently made a meme that is just too close to the truth to be seen as sarcastic

Anyone who thinks this is just incapable of navigating them.

I really think it’s disgusting to boldly claim this is just to protect children. Then get the proposal denied with very valid reasoning that everyone’s privacy would be compromised.

And then, a few months later, they have the exact same argument again with the same proposal as before… This seems deeply disrespectful of the subject matter

It feels like a someone is trying to steal a cookie from a cookie jar, but when mum said no you just try again the exact same way…

/u/Chainweasel@lemmy.world explains this well, though I got a different take on the analogy.

Imagine you are trying to put air into a deflating balloon that’s about to ‘loose form’ that’s essentially what you are trying.

Put just enough air (energy/mass) into the star and it will stay stable, loosing as much as you put into it.

Too little and the star will dissolved, in this example you’d fully absorb it.

Too much and you are essentially infusing a star with so much mass that it explodes all over again.

If you are trying to stabilise a star this way, ideally, it would never even begin to go nova.

What game is that? Is that from the level generator or from other players?

After spending a day with it, this is exactly what I want! Thanks for the recommendation

thanks! I’ve tried this but in the end its just a different way of displaying but i want groups to be contained differently as well

Thanks for the tip! I actually consider what you call an advantage a disadvantage and visa versa. I always have 2 opera windows open side to side (on i3) and like that they are not the same

OK I am dumb I didn’t read the edit at the end

I mean… Maybe I am just oversimplifying things or misreading something, but if the cabinet the switch was on was metal then maybe the switch connected ground to ground? Suddenly changing ground to ground can crash old hardware quite reliably but booting with another ground plate could make it adjust the potentials properly… I’ve done this multiple times in a lab, in essence adding more ground causes the ground plates to equal out and that sudden drop can crash sensitive hardware…

Please tell me i am wrong I want this magic switch to be true so bad

Here is a documentation link of chromiums conceptual application layer: https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/displaying-a-web-page-in-chrome/ which clearly shows the core of chromium (especially rendering, and API infrastructure by w3) is done via WebKit through a Webkit Port and a glue layer for type compatability.

I never said WebKit and Chromium are the same engine, mainly because chromium is not an engine at all. WebKit is a browser engine and is the core of chromium, chromium is a browser core, but not an engine.

Where do you get the information from that most fingerprinting is done in JS ? Because, in the end, the data has to be sent to a server to be processed (even if the fingerprint is aggregated in a cookie). Which in turn would just be another way of saying its on the backend.

If i do a JS request to the backend bc i want to see album X and its cover, i request the resource from the server. There is no way around this. If the actions I took are saved on a local cookie or the server directly logs the request makes 0 difference in the end as to process the logged action it would’ve to be sent to the server anyways; else there is no point in logging.

Here is mozillas docs for fingerprinting: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Fingerprinting As can be seen the tab itself only has access to the APIs of the hardware down under, which can in turn not really be trusted as any linux user can easily spoof these. Sure you can be identified, as in your browser. But nothing about your hardware. I just did that test and all the hardware info is miles off.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

This is true for the desktop/mobile app application I aggree with you there since its a CEF native on desktop and mobile apps have these kinds of APIs. I very much disagree with the Web client (which admittedly my original comment didn’t mention at all, personally I mainly use the Web player)

Since on Web it’s just a Website, all previously mentioned serve side tracking applies; but getting any hardware information through the sandboxing would break the browser security model and is not possible since there is no such web API. Web fingerprinting is one of the reasons apple (at least they keep bringing it up as a concern) is not keen on implementing the Web API for the luminance sensor on safari. Interestingly webkit (chromium core) does have the functionality which is why it’s behind a dev flag atm (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/AmbientLightSensor)

Identifying hardware should not be possible according to the browsers security model.

I should’ve phrased my question as ‘what advantage does spotube provide over Spotify premium in the browser’, after downloading it and trying it out I am guessing the biggest advantage is the download button and stuff like that? Though… I personally have no use for offline Musik nowadays.

Edit: Sidenote: the Mozilla docs frequently mention that the user agent may be used to infer hardware/browser information, and therefore developers are encouraged so spoof it (and in general not to trust the information given)

Anything you do in the UI has some associated backend request (everything relevant at least). Search queries, loading albums, skipping, changing settings, anything is just a Web requ on their backend server which could still be collected. The custom ui does not save you from relevant data collection. Only thing potentially not getting tracked is empty navigation between tabs, but there is not a lot of info in tab switching

As much as I am a fam of alternative Software and such, what are actual advantages of using spotube over Spotify premium? Disregarding the membership fee.