Building a network is something anyone can do. Join meetups. Find local user groups. Find online groups and get active in them. Give talks. Write and publish your thoughts locally and/or online. Talk with people. Ask (good) questions. Let people get to know you and the way you think. Many more ways exist than just these.
Connecting with other professionals in various ways is all there is to building a network and anyone can do it. They just have to do it.
This. I'm still benefiting from being in a BSD users group that I went to between 2000-2008 because it was filled with passionate/talented tech people, most of whom have gone onto other things. Find places to get into discussions and show your opinions and have discussions. If you are in a group where your mind is never changed, then find something else.
Quality of work, communication challenges in time zones, language barriers, and setting a company culture are huge barriers to entry for workers remote from India.
Minimum required wages of at least the prevailing wage and limited access for W2's are major ones for bringing them here. Even doubling the W2's wouldn't cover replacing all jobs.
They're not blocking uBO, they're removing the features in the browser that allowed uBO to work by releasing new plugin APIs, "Manifest v3". They're eliminating the key APIs needed for uBO to identify things that it shouldn't load, and then not load them. Google claims this was for "performance" or "security" reasons. Of course, the only major 'performance' or 'security' affected is the ability to identify, intercept, and stop harmful or ad related downloads before they start.
Does this affect extensions that know every website you visit even if it doesnt need to know, and has nothing to do with the extension’s functionality? (ie the ones that Similarweb buys)
You're probably right, but FWIW it's not unheard of for google to announce, continually delay, and eventually completely backtrack on things like this, like third party cookie deprecation.
I'm apple hater but you got to recognize they do better at privacy than Google.
If you care about the NSA, then you better not have any phone. Whatever it's a android, iphone, grapheneos, anything. Israel blowing up pagers is a proof that nothing is impossible to them.
But if you want to say fuck off to the big data harvester like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and so on.. then apple isn't bad at all.
You just got to deal with the usual apple bullshit, no side loading, repairability, thunderbolt charger, no headphone jack, etc.
Your privacy is as strong as your weakest Link. NSA only need one a few vulnerability to be able to monitor what you do, it may be on chip maker, network provider, operating system, compiler, etc..
That's a lost battle, if they want to see what you do, they do and there is nothing one can do but force them legally not to do so.
I am sure there is a name for this fallacy, but being better yet not enough at something where bar for reaching privacy is so high isn't cutting it. The result is the same, sans warm fuzzy feeling not anchored in sad reality of 2024.
so instead of an actual improvement just settle for second least worst? ironically google pixels are 100 times more private than any apple device will ever be because you can securely run your own 100% controlled open source OS such as grapheneos.org which is an actual private as in feature not marketing OS.
A phone has several levels of software and hardware, the OS that the user knows is not in charge of communications, its main role is to interface the user to the computer inside the phone. The phone OS sees the phone communication hardware akin to the way it sees an Ethernet card. The phone communication hardware (named baseband modem) is also under control of the SIM and every time the mobile operator wants to change the behavior of the baseband modem it can through the Sim toolkit.
Believing the software can somehow be separated from the hardware is a lie. They can mitigate at best the the amount of information one can extract but at the end whoever control the hardware can have access to extremely private information.
A gyroscope sensor is able to accurately record what one say close to his phone. It doesn’t even need Android to run he has access to private information.
And if you've missed it, note the prior "verified contact" key exchange added to iMessages, as well as the "sorry we can't read your backups to help you recover your data" security added to iCloud (provided you only use devices up-to-date and opted in). This one is a customer service nightmare, they added it anyway.
All that said, this article is less interesting since (a) if your cell phone uses a telco, "they" know where you are, and where you've been, no Apple needed; and (b) unlike Apple segmenting your Maps directions to prevent themselves from knowing where you are going, Google's always been about your location.
Apple was caught issuing issuing OCSP queries (hello, XKEYSCORE) every time an app was launched, promised to stop logging and build an opt-out, then reneged and memory-holed the promise.
Why? Apart from state sponsored violation of privacy, I think Apple does in fact provide the best privacy protections. I’m also happy they don’t do bizarre things like Android sometimes does, for example preventing you from taking screenshots on your own device because an app can do that on Android.
However, I dislike Apple for their extortionist approach to defending the App Store duopoly, browser access, moderation/censorship on apps, etc.
They are a for-profit company. They are closed-sourced both in hardware and software. Their ecosystem is known to be a walled garden. They aren't open in their processes. They sell your data, they just don't tell you. Following all of their ToS you have to agree to use their devices - you don't even own anything, you are just paying for a subscription (that can be revoked any time for any reason) to use the device.
It really is a whole alien domain to itself. The syntax being so foreign to most developers doesn't help. But it's so powerful, incredibly powerful, and in most browsers, extremely efficient.
The extremely vast majority of web app developers don't need 99% of what CSS can offer. But it's neat to know it's there.
whole alien domain
so foreign to most developers
doesn't help.
it's so powerful, incredibly powerful,
most browsers, extremely efficient.
That is because CSS is a different Chomsky Grammar than HTML and EMCA - intentionally not Turing complete, nor-self referential - why the "has(" puedo property was so problematic.
That also relates to sibling comments about the awkwardness of the pairing to Javscript, which is of a higher grammar, and Turing Complete*.
It also relates to the "awesomeness" of the "fire-and-forget" nature of CSS - unless very specifically hooked, it can be hardware-accelerated nearly care-free because it isn't per frame to the DOM, which Javascript is (meaning HTML, it's own Chomsky Grammar!)
It is what it is, the epitome of an optimized amalgamation of technical debt we call the modern web specification.
> That is because CSS is a different Chomsky Grammar than HTML and EMCA - intentionally not Turing complete, nor-self referential - why the "has(" puedo property was so problematic.
It will be a nitpicky comment, and I’m sure you mean it this way, but it wasn’t clear to me: a language’s syntax being in one type of grammar class is irrelevant to its execution semantics corresponding to a recognizing automaton. So you can have a language with a regular syntax that is Turing complete just fine.
In fact, most languages’ syntaxes are context-free (sometimes with some escape hatches), but are semantically Turing-complete.
I even put an asterisk! Oh wait, not the usual "unlimited tape finite universe"
I was unclear. It is intentionally not Turing Complete, by way of avoiding self-references, as self-references would make it a higher-order grammar, and Turing-complete because it then it can innately loop, making it impossible to flatten to a lower, Labeled Push down automaton.
Although they are mutually exclusive, I implied causality.
Its the implicit loop and requirement of a heap/stack of variables self-referencing requires that is Turing-Complete itself.
I would had had, had - "has" not been had, expected sooner, but atlas.
But the aforementioned ":has":
:
The :has() pseudo-class cannot be nested within another :has(). This is because many pseudo-elements exist conditionally based on the styling of their ancestors and allowing these to be queried by :has() can introduce cyclic querying.
Pseudo-elements are also not valid selectors within :has() and pseudo-elements are not valid anchors for :has().
Note the two limits, "cyclic querying" and self-referential parameters.
The former is required for a basic computational model, the latter for one that supports recursive-ness and thus some optimizations .
"Rule 110"
This is just lambada calculus and has no tape movement - requires checkin boxes, still, and thinking about whether or not to halt - which actually kinda is its own asterisk (not the usual 'infinite tape' kind). Turing Machines would halt on some input; your calculator goes until the actual computer, you, halts, or stops actually checking(computing) the state for a HALT/desired state.
You'd think someone woulda parasol'd the checkboxes and at least attempted to use :onHover with grid to require minimal mouse movement to trigger input instead.
Or, a bounding box input state driven hack - like when your cursor is "in between" elements, changing every frame.
pure HTML+CSS, e.g. https://github.com/yrd/tm2css
seems cool, actually. SASS repeats CSS exhaustively through HTML-encoded steps until a valid one is painted - that valid one being the HALT/output. You do have to specify the number of steps, though. You would have to know whether or not it halts, the answer, and how many steps it took to compute to functionally (heavy-lifting in this context) use it - or else it would have to reference itself....which would make it a higher grammar.
This can create cyclic dependencies where a custom property uses a var() referring to itself, or two or more custom properties each attempt to refer to each other....If there is a cycle in the dependency graph, all the custom properties in the cycle are invalid at computed-value time.
Very close. But you must beg the question (ie. know the answer) in both step count and thus the answer, else you'd have an infinite HTML page. Which is fine in math (HTML is a Type 2, can be infinite, no self-reference, no self-children, nor orphans), but not really much of a simulation/emulation though - if it can only produce valid machines at (essentially) compile time.
Everyone reading this speaks multiple computer languages, and knows what a "syntax" is.
The disambiguation between levels (grammars) of syntax is what the above poster was both lamenting and heralding - possibly unaware of it's technical and mathematical necessity.
