Everything about computer imagery is pretty sadly limited when compared to the capabilities of human eyes and brains. And for quite some time now the ends of the pipeline (camera sensors and computer displays) have been improving, but are bottlenecked by the middle of the pipeline (image formats).

So it's unsurprising that they have pushed the format optimized for "as few bits as we can get away with before things like too terrible" rather than actually improving quality and extending capabilities.

Every engineer has had unpleasant experiences with some giant convoluted messes. And there's a strong tendency to blame for that at the feet of the tools/stack/language of those messes, and believe that if we just choose something different, this time it will be clean and perfect.

Of course, some or all of that blame is undeserved. "Giant convoluted mess" is the state toward which every project will tend over time. But that rarely diminishes the totemic belief that new tools will produce different results, so an impetus toward novelty-for-novelty's-sake remains persistent.

While you should never trust any corporation in the sense that you might trust a person, you can trust that they will do the things that they believe will make them the most money.

What financial incentive do you believe that apple has to steal your fingerprints?

So if they implement policies that increase the average quality of apps and decrease the total quantity, that's an improvement for users twice over.

That's hardly unique to this site, and hardly as recent as 2016.

I would say that we can trace people with an understanding of technology being anti-ad back to at least 1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters?useskin=vector

So speed can vary wildly depending on how you're choosing to use it. And that's without even getting into the wide variance of hardware.

But generally speaking, it will usually be significantly faster than one image per minute.

Yes. Up until now, the amount of Google bullshit that Safari has saved us all from is _staggering._ It is unfortunate that this won't be another catastrophe deflected.

This is also why I'm concerned about legislation requiring Apple to open up sideloading onto their devices. As much as I love the idea of people having control over their own systems, in practice I'm afraid that it's just going to be the final nail that solidifies Google's complete control over the web all the way out to the client.

Musk and Bezos seem to have come to roughly similar outcomes, so evidence suggests yes.

Yep! That's pretty much what agreeing or disagreeing with something means.

But the reasoning you seem to be proposing is "here is something you agree with and something you disagree with, therefore those two things are interchangeable and you should not favor one over the other."

> Now what do you do? Both sides can say their cause is “advancing rights”.

I exercise human discretion and decide which of those rights is better, more valuable, more important.

In this case, that's not a tough call. Marriage provides a bunch of very concrete mechanical effects, from inheritance to medical decision making to finances to immigration. Whereas some people feeling happy about the fact that some other people can't access those rights is, at best, abstract and intangible.

And you'll also note that some of my previous references were to the uniformity of rights. Generally speaking, making rights more uniformly accessible to all people is better than having rights be selectively, arbitrarily limited to some people.

Any reductive moral framework that abstracts every possible political position into interchangeable spherical cows in a vacuum does a disservice to its users.

I would hope that the grandparent was not referring to this thing that never existed as "the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS."

It seems disingenuous to sweep "actively working to deny people civil rights" under the rug of "having an unpopular political opinion."

Partially because this wasn't just a matter of having an opinion; this was an extremely concrete _action._ Even if you want to take the (dubious) stance that people should not be held responsible for their beliefs, surely we should still hold people responsible for their actions?

Which client side scanning would that be?

Google is generally excellent at security, but that doesn't change the fact that they're a nightmare for privacy.

Or as a slightly more thorough approach, you can use something like namebench or dnsbench:

https://code.google.com/archive/p/namebench

https://github.com/askmediagroup/dnsbench

I still don't understand why some people believe that the correct answer is anything other than 100 windows.

My platform has 40 years of well refined tools for managing windows, all of which work nicely and consistently across all applications. By comparison, all of the tab management systems are crude amatuerish knockoffs trying to reinvent the same tools from first principles, and isolated to a single application that's then inconsistent with everything else.

"I see people talking about the Brave browser in the whole Firefox vs chrome debate, and while people rightly point out that it's just chromium and that they do shady cryptocurrency shit, I never see anyone point out that Brave's founder and CEO is Brandan Eich.

"He founded Brave after massive protests against him becoming CEO of Mozilla, resigning after 11 days. And the reason for those protests? He donated a lot of money to the Prop 8 campaign to ban gay marriage.

"So just remember: it's not just another chromium fork, it's not just a browser with cryptocurrency bullshit, it's also the browser founded by a homophobe because he got kicked out of his former organization for being a homophobe.

"Also, he invented Javascript. I'm willing to believe that maybe he has grown on the gay marriage issue, and made amends for his former mistakes. But Javascript cannot be forgiven."