Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | shakna's commentslogin

And then, over with AGSVA, they just do interviews. Every candidate gets one, and they absolutely do bring up all the random crap that happens to various people as kids. And ask why it wasn't on your form.

Reverse engineering the drivers, to permit you creating your own OS, for your own hardware, is already an area where people are accused of crimes. DMCA Section 1201 isn't something to so easily be worked around, to allow you to place your software in a working state onto undocumented hardware.

So, yes, there is a lot of things stopping you from coding your own OS.


And if your bank only does 2FA via app?

Complain. Mine wanted that, but after complaining they offered me SMS. If not, I'd have closed my account there. At least here in Spain there are plenty of banks that don't force you to use apps. I also leave bad ratings for banking apps from time to time, and bad comments on X.

Since before 2023, MFA has been mandated by the government in Australia [0], for all critical services, including banks.

One without, does not exist, or is in violation of their national obligations and likely to be cut off by the RBA.

The only "effective" complaint here, would be the gigantic effort to lobby for a change in laws entirely.

[0] https://www.apra.gov.au/use-of-multi-factor-authentication-m...


In my country there are regulations in effect too that mandate the use of MFA; however, using an application is not the only way to implement MFA, as I said, in Spain banks can use SMS, coordinate cards, etc., and they are all valid MFA methods. I think what these laws are missing is the obligation for the service (the bank in this case) to provide a MFA device if the user doesn't have one.

Being able to change stylesheets, disable or enhance various JavaScript scripts, add notes and annotations, and other things, is exactly the idea of a user agent.

The user makes a request, and then does whatever they like with the answer. Not just whatever is sensible, but whatever they want to do.

If that concept somehow became accepted again... I think the accessible web might well become a solved problem, rather than an endless slog.


>Being able to change stylesheets

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/

>disable or enhance various JavaScript scripts

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tampermonkey/...

Yeah you can't directly alter scripts being ran (as far as I know?) but you can usually override/extend behavior and can definitely add your own

>add notes and annotations

https://cwmonkey.github.io/greasemonkey/make-note/

(I haven't actually used this one, just first result)


I'm aware of plugins. But these used to be builtin features. Developers needed to work with them, rather than making it harder and harder to use them to make the users life easiee.

In what way is that not currently possible? All browsers I know of you can edit whatever you want in any page you download

You'll need to do a bit of work to make it the way it used to be. Editing any text on a page, or having your changes save persistently, needs a bit of a... Framework, to keep things together, rather than being the expected mode of interaction.

Sure, I can add a p to the tree. But if I refresh, its gone. I'll probably need plugins to keep my own stylesheets and JS changes around.


And Australia made the poorer and suicidal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme

I wonder of China can pay Trump with a golden limosuine to get backdoor access to it.

Salesforce is used well beyond its domain, unfortunately. A lot of BAs love the drag 'n drop design features.

I used to run Wordstar 2.0 under Wine, and it was smooth. 3d Museum, Dancing Hearts, etc. will 'just work'.

That Raspberry probably can run all the peak Win98SE stuff, today.


Those companies are required to publicise the addictive nature of their products, and required to advertise services to aid those addicted.

Facebook consistently argues they are not a source of harm, and do none of that.

If the consumer isn't proactively being informed, then no, litigation isn't patently absurd.

"Informed consent" is what you're missing, here.


Since we're being condescending here: what you're missing is absence of laws making a given activity illegal.

As far as I know there's no law that you could use to claim that Facebook did something illegal based on some notion of making addictive products.

Just like there are no laws you could use to claim a winemaker did something illegal based on some notion of making addictive products.

And I think it would be absurd to make what Facebook does illegal before we make what winemaker does illegal.

And we tried with winemakers. Educate yourself on dark times of Prohibition. (you opened the condescension doors).

> Those companies are required to publicise the addictive nature of their products, and required to advertise services to aid those addicted

I've never seen such advertising so I suspect you pulled that factoid out of your ass. Easy for you to correct me: laws have numbers, cite one.

If there is such law for say, alcohol, I wouldn't be opposed to such requirements for Facebook.

I mean, it obviously would end up as ineffective annoyance that doesn't deter or fix anything, like cookie banners, but have at it.

So yeah, it's still patently absurd to sue Facebook claiming addiction.


> I've never seen such advertising so I suspect you pulled that factoid out of your ass. Easy for you to correct me: laws have numbers, cite one.

More than one, but how about we have the FDA do the informing here, as I've apparently pissed you off:

https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-st...


Peissel claimed that was marmots and totally real, didn't they?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: