very cool.
Uncategorized
27
Posts
14
Posters
0
Views
-
@ariadne anti-fingerprinting feels like a pyrrhic victory to the extent it can be achieved
sure, random webpages probably don't need to know how many cores you have (and thoughtful design could keep this available to those few which maybe do). but the thing that made me conclude this is
Accept-Language:, a feature that is intentionally made worse for bilingual users in service of reducing fingerprintability. i think i'd rather have that than a (in practice) false promise about privacy@whitequark @ariadne About a year ago I briefly looked into LibreWolf. The tipping point in giving up came about an hour later when I saw it was hardcoded to "prefers-color-scheme: light" because dark mode can be used for fingerprinting.
-
@lina @whitequark agreed, but also why do websites need to know i have a fucking threadripper
@lina @whitequark like that is my point here, i cannot think of any reason why a website needs to know i have 128 threads
-
@lina @whitequark like that is my point here, i cannot think of any reason why a website needs to know i have 128 threads
@ariadne @lina i ship an FPGA toolchain in the browser. it can* use multithreading. it needs to know how many threads to run to not contend on resources uselessly
* currently not built in that configuration for a variety of reasons that is not specifically tied to the web
-
@ariadne @lina i ship an FPGA toolchain in the browser. it can* use multithreading. it needs to know how many threads to run to not contend on resources uselessly
* currently not built in that configuration for a variety of reasons that is not specifically tied to the web
@ariadne @lina it's not a reason to expose information useful to, like, 1 site you might maybe use, to every of them, and frankly i am not aware of any material benefit from running more than 4 of p&r threads in parallel so it could probably be capped to that. but i think this is a legitimate reason
-
@ariadne @lina it's not a reason to expose information useful to, like, 1 site you might maybe use, to every of them, and frankly i am not aware of any material benefit from running more than 4 of p&r threads in parallel so it could probably be capped to that. but i think this is a legitimate reason
@whitequark @ariadne @lina a problem is we use the web browser for two totally separate purposes: as a way of looking at transient text/image/video content; and as the only surviving application platform. we want two totally opposite things out of these two different platforms ("control the computer" vs "touch nothing"), but insist on not delineating the two website metacategories. and microsoft/apple/android are only gonna keep making it harder to offload applications back onto "computers"
-
@whitequark @ariadne @lina a problem is we use the web browser for two totally separate purposes: as a way of looking at transient text/image/video content; and as the only surviving application platform. we want two totally opposite things out of these two different platforms ("control the computer" vs "touch nothing"), but insist on not delineating the two website metacategories. and microsoft/apple/android are only gonna keep making it harder to offload applications back onto "computers"
@whitequark @ariadne @lina The era where Flash was the "escalated privilege" layer of the web, and click-to-flash plugins were common, was the only time either the developer or user permissions model here made sense
-
@whitequark @ariadne @lina a problem is we use the web browser for two totally separate purposes: as a way of looking at transient text/image/video content; and as the only surviving application platform. we want two totally opposite things out of these two different platforms ("control the computer" vs "touch nothing"), but insist on not delineating the two website metacategories. and microsoft/apple/android are only gonna keep making it harder to offload applications back onto "computers"
-
@rpgwaiter @ariadne WASM uses it (and Anubis had a bug when the machine had an odd number of cores).
-
@lina @whitequark like that is my point here, i cannot think of any reason why a website needs to know i have 128 threads
@ariadne @lina @whitequark ah. it's a spam signal. like it cuts into their profits if they treat data-center hardware as likely to have a human sitting in front of it using it as a personal device, so they try to not do that.
-
@ariadne @lina @whitequark ah. it's a spam signal. like it cuts into their profits if they treat data-center hardware as likely to have a human sitting in front of it using it as a personal device, so they try to not do that.
@ariadne @lina @whitequark apologies for using a vague "they" there; specifically it cuts into the revenue of ad networks and the various participants in ad ecosystems
-
@whitequark @ariadne @lina The era where Flash was the "escalated privilege" layer of the web, and click-to-flash plugins were common, was the only time either the developer or user permissions model here made sense
@mcc @ariadne @lina i think this is a reasonable way to view the problem domain but i don't entirely agree—i think the web is about as close to "fully granular permission model, without vendor lock-in" as we ever got and perhaps will ever get, and that it's valuable that i can give a webpage access to a USB device while denying it everything else on the computer, like "filesystem"
unfortunately, i cannot in good faith say that the fully granular permission model works. technically it could be made to work, sure, but getting people to understand the exact consequences of granting X permission is probably a lost cause—it would take someone a lot smarter than me to figure out how to do it
unfortunately#2 the actual, real-world alternative to doing that is "download and run an .exe" or "curl | bash" which is strictly worse. so i just don't know
-
@mcc @ariadne @lina i think this is a reasonable way to view the problem domain but i don't entirely agree—i think the web is about as close to "fully granular permission model, without vendor lock-in" as we ever got and perhaps will ever get, and that it's valuable that i can give a webpage access to a USB device while denying it everything else on the computer, like "filesystem"
unfortunately, i cannot in good faith say that the fully granular permission model works. technically it could be made to work, sure, but getting people to understand the exact consequences of granting X permission is probably a lost cause—it would take someone a lot smarter than me to figure out how to do it
unfortunately#2 the actual, real-world alternative to doing that is "download and run an .exe" or "curl | bash" which is strictly worse. so i just don't know
@whitequark @ariadne @lina well, but that's exactly the problem i think. we built a fully granular permissions model where we really actually wanted a bimodal permissions model. and because the granular permissions model is so *incredibly fucking complicated*, the browser vendors go way out of their way to hide it, so it's not very useful.
browser vendors snowed us with the useless notifications/locations requests, and now are terrified to add perm popups because they got bad feedback on that.
-
@whitequark @ariadne @lina well, but that's exactly the problem i think. we built a fully granular permissions model where we really actually wanted a bimodal permissions model. and because the granular permissions model is so *incredibly fucking complicated*, the browser vendors go way out of their way to hide it, so it's not very useful.
browser vendors snowed us with the useless notifications/locations requests, and now are terrified to add perm popups because they got bad feedback on that.
@whitequark @ariadne @lina why is webrtc locked behind the microphone permission. i know what the web browsers *claim* is the answer to this question but imo the real reason is that they set out to make a fully granular permissions model, immediately discovered that had downsides, and have been backpedaling ever since
(I acknowledge the fully granular model is what works best for your goal of shipping an FPGA programmer)
-
@mcc @ariadne @lina i think this is a reasonable way to view the problem domain but i don't entirely agree—i think the web is about as close to "fully granular permission model, without vendor lock-in" as we ever got and perhaps will ever get, and that it's valuable that i can give a webpage access to a USB device while denying it everything else on the computer, like "filesystem"
unfortunately, i cannot in good faith say that the fully granular permission model works. technically it could be made to work, sure, but getting people to understand the exact consequences of granting X permission is probably a lost cause—it would take someone a lot smarter than me to figure out how to do it
unfortunately#2 the actual, real-world alternative to doing that is "download and run an .exe" or "curl | bash" which is strictly worse. so i just don't know
@whitequark @mcc @ariadne @lina Flatpak has a bunch of permissions one can grant, just saying ...
-
@whitequark @ariadne @lina a problem is we use the web browser for two totally separate purposes: as a way of looking at transient text/image/video content; and as the only surviving application platform. we want two totally opposite things out of these two different platforms ("control the computer" vs "touch nothing"), but insist on not delineating the two website metacategories. and microsoft/apple/android are only gonna keep making it harder to offload applications back onto "computers"
@mcc @whitequark @ariadne @lina I want to know if anybody is working on separating the web into those two things. It can only make things better for everyone. We can get hypertext documents that load fast and look better than ever, and network-sourced applications with runtimes that are performant on a potato.
-
@ariadne @lina it's not a reason to expose information useful to, like, 1 site you might maybe use, to every of them, and frankly i am not aware of any material benefit from running more than 4 of p&r threads in parallel so it could probably be capped to that. but i think this is a legitimate reason
@whitequark @ariadne @lina This seems like a reasoning I've seen in the late 90s, where some browser would send your OS login password along to literally every web request. Sure, there *could* be some where it's useful, but they can ask for it explicitly, and I can give them permission. The default should always be not to send those things.
-
@ariadne @lina i ship an FPGA toolchain in the browser. it can* use multithreading. it needs to know how many threads to run to not contend on resources uselessly
* currently not built in that configuration for a variety of reasons that is not specifically tied to the web
@whitequark @ariadne @lina Uh - cool, but it tells me "web assembly JSPI is not enabled". After enabling it in Firefox' about:config, it still says it's not enabled. Any ideas?
-
@whitequark @mcc @ariadne @lina Flatpak has a bunch of permissions one can grant, just saying ...
@hruske @whitequark @mcc @ariadne @lina
yeah and everything just gets full read write access to your home directory making because devs are lazy and body cares -
very cool. this is why i hate the modern web.
@ariadne oh that's nothing. Check this out
-
@whitequark @mcc @ariadne @lina Flatpak has a bunch of permissions one can grant, just saying ...
@hruske @whitequark great, now you can ship your app to… desktop Linux users (but NOT to Ubuntu systems which are the most common ones)
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
-
@Abstract_Bit già.
A onor del vero, è stato quasi sempre lo stesso, chiunque fosse al potere negli ultimi 20-30 anni, tranne, a memoria, cose minori. Potrei ricordarmi male però.
-
Today I turn 50. But don't worry, I learnt dealing with myself.
Mentally shaken, physically proven, spiritually unaddicted.
But I'm starting enjoying to be alive.
-
@jaredwhite longtime fan of your podcasts, Jared! I still keep "Just a Spec" in my podcast app wishing for new episodes 🤗
-
@UltimateHackingKeyboard
Custom-shaped keys and row stagger? Naah
-
@krans@mastodon.me.uk That's a real and legitimate grievance, but it's a different argument from the one we were having.
Your employer using LLM translation to cut costs on documentation for a massive Korean customer (while having the resources to do it properly) is a decision made by someone with power, to save money, at the expense of Korean users. That's worth being angry about.
But I'm an individual trying to participate in a public conversation. I can't hire a personal interpreter every time I want to respond to a post. The choice I actually face is: use available tools, or stay silent. Those aren't the same situation, and the same tool can mean very different things depending on who's holding it and why.
If anything, your example reinforces the point. The problem isn't the tool, but it's who gets to decide when it's “good enough.”
-
@print what does it do with snake case #are_these_read_as_separate_words ?
-
Epilogo tristissimo. Quanto tempo passato nei reparti della loro libreria.
Hoepli, l’assemblea dei soci decide la messa in liquidazione
https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/hoepli-l-assemblea-soci-decide-messa-liquidazione-AILzlksB
