"Privacy-focused" unless you need privacy from the EU itself. DNS services know every website your computer connects to before HTTPs comes on, so it's rather sensitive.
Read it rather quickly, but looks fine at least on the surface. Sadly, there is no way I would trust anything as sensitive as DNS with the EU given their dreadful record of creeping surveillance.
Depends a bit on which machine really. Overall, I am more confident trusting a company with a good track record or non-profit with DNS. Mullvad have great offerings with optional content blocking and DNS over both HTTPS and TLS:
If there are other entities (commercial or not) with similar DNS services I would be happy to hear about them.
I find some reactions here to my initial comment a bit puzzling. Yes, the EU has a number of great attempts at getting privacy legislation right. Personally, I even have sympathies for the cookie banners. But it is equally true that we have seen attempts and successes to introduce surveillance measures as well. I remember the fight against the Data Retention Directive [1] and we still have "Chat Control" lurking in the shadows. Thus, I do not think I am entirely wrong in feeling less than chuffed about the prospect of handing all my DNS queries straight over to an entity working directly under the European Commission.
There were many laws on surveillance proposed in the EU context as there are many parties that make proposals. But there's no actual such law in place. And the EU is bound by GDPR and EDPR and actually does a huge circus to respect them, so I'd trust them more than any other party, be it my provider or the mega corps collecting data for ads.
Non-cPIR databases tend to have that problem indeed, and from what I understand cPIR is not practical. So in the strictest sense, this issue will continue to remain and is not reasonable to expect otherwise.
But if someone here is more involved in private information retrieval tech and the likes & knows different, happy to learn more.
In the end, with DNS you have to trust someone, your ISP, the DoH host, or wherever you get the records for running your own resolver. It's not a "Do I want privacy yes or no?" but rather "Who do I trust enough to make these requests through?"
Personally, I'd trust an entity that is under GDPR more than one that is not.
The fun part is that Spotlight used to do this, but they progressively made it worse year after year. It became completely unusable for me maybe a couple of years ago and switched to Raycast, which I use exactly like I used to use Spotlight in 2010 and nothing more.
Sorry to burst your bubble but users literally do not care "how native it looks" other than the vocal minority online. Never ever heard any non-technical user complain that Spotify does not fit in.
They're willing to accept a certain amount of "specialization" for things they care about deeply / use all the time / demand unique approaches, but people like things to look and behave the same when they're pure utility. Which most things are.
People don't complain about Spotify, because (1) the design feels and performs like something Apple would design, and (2) music is something people have feelings about, and so expect differentiation.
I mean … it looks an awful lot like an evolution of the prior one to me. It's being billed as a major departure, but the elements, relationships, and how you interact with them remain unchanged.
They're rolling it out across their entire product catalog, so more consistency if anything.
Hard disagree. If people cared, then all iOS apps would use standard styling, but the matter of fact is that every app has its own style, which does not stop at colors. They all share the same affordances (top left arrow to go back, bottom tab bar) but the UI is more often than not heavily customized.
Take Slack for example with its fancy menus, not even close to what Apple uses. No feelings expected there. Let's not talk about Google apps, which live in its own UI world.
> If people cared, then all iOS apps would use standard styling, but the matter of fact is that every app has its own style, which does not stop at colors.
This assumes they have a choice between equivalent apps that OS-integrated and one that are not. Many times, they don't.
Anecdotally: while some people don't care about consistency in the art they put on their walls, most do.
Slack is included in the "apps that you use all the time" rule. Also in the "apps you don't have a choice about" rule.
Don't forget all major OSS repositories using a stale bot to close any issue regardless of how many people reported it or how serious it is. Close and lock at times. Yikes.
I have seen OpenZFS adopt one, but whenever I have seen a bug that has merit closed by the stale bot, it is reopened by a contributor and a not-stale flag is added to prevent it from being automatically closed again. Note that I am a contributor, but I am not one of the ones who is reopening bugs and marking them as not stale. The few times I saw such a bug and would have done it, someone else beat me to it.
The stale bot approach does help in cases where a bug does not have merit. For example, not that long ago, a user opened a bug asking us to rename the ZFS Event Daemon so a text editor could adopt the daemon’s name. The consensus among contributors on the discussion is that we will not do it, but no one has volunteered to be the one to close the bug. The stale bot will be closing that one for us.
I think that once a bug has been verified and keeps getting likes, it should not be closed.
If the user never responded to further questions, then absolutely.
What I see however is that maintainers themselves fight the bot removing the label and reopening issues. Over and over. Until they miss the notification.
> The stale bot approach does help in cases where a bug does not have merit. For example, not that long ago, a user opened a bug asking us to rename the ZFS Event Daemon so a text editor could adopt the daemon’s name. The consensus among contributors on the discussion is that we will not do it, but no one has volunteered to be the one to close the bug. The stale bot will be closing that one for us.
That doesn't sound like an even remotely ideal way to handle that. Don't just needlessly string the original reporter along until some arbitrary time limit expires.
It should be obvious to him that it is not happening given that several contributors all responded no. As for closing the bug, no one has volunteered to be the one to do it.
I stopped reporting bugs when I see the repo is using stale bot. One thing is to be ignored for a while, because maintainers are busy. Another one is to be told "we ignored you long enough, it is not an issue".
Yes it still is. I made a reproducible example, try it out.
Yep, stale bot got me to stop reporting bugs to Kubernetes, I spend time to gather details for an useful and it just gets closed without any human interaction. That's super disrespectful.
Yeah if I see a bot like that I just don't bother with bug reports to that project. Absolutely disrespectful to not even bother having a human look at the bug to decide if it can be closed.
So first of all, I like Apple notes for its simplicity and ability to sync with iCloud. I don't really care if it's exportable using markdown, I only really care that it is exportable. Because I'd like to migrate to the notes app I am working on.
3DS is not just 2FA, but it has an option to shift liability to the card issuer in case of card-stolen disputes. Our fraud has come to near 0 once we started 3DS enforcement. 1% of 3DS transactions don't lead to a liability shift, and in such cases, we flag those transactions and call the customer to get more forms of identification that they own the card.
With PayPal - beyond ownership of email address (which is already compromised), there's nothing else to validate against.
Crows and parrots are amazing talkers too, but there's a hard limit to how much sense they make. Do you want those birds to teach your kids and serve you medicine?
If you're lucky to work in such an environment, more power to you. A lot of people have to deal with React where you need so much glue for basic tasks, and React isn't even the worst offender. Some boilerplate you can't wrap.
I use React at work, there is barely any boilerplate. I actually started a brand new project based on React recently and the initial setup before working on actual components was minutes.
I don't know what you're posting, but if it's anything like what I see being done by GitHub copilot, your commit messages are junk. They're equivalent to this and you're wasting everyone's time:
Try Cubic, which is a Github add-on. Really good at writing GH commit messages and also surfaces bugs fairly reliably (adds PR comments). Not affiliated, just a user.
One of the most interesting things in all of this is it is clear some people are struggling with the feeling of a loss in status.
I see it myself, go to a tech/startup meetup as a programmer today vs in 2022 before ZIRP ended.
It's like back to my youth where people didn't want to hear my opinion and didn't view me as "special" or "in demand" because I was "a nerd who talked to computers", that's gotta be tough for a lot of people who grew up in the post "The Social Network" era.
But anyone paying attention knew where the end of ZIRP was going to take us, the fact that it dovetailed with the rise of LLMs is a double blow for sure.
You can't "remove" how LLMs describe changes. I'm not talking about useless comments, I was just saying that they describe changes the same way as they comment code.
If you've ever run or been part of a team that does thorough, multi-party, pull request reviews you know what I am talking about.
The only part I don't automate is the pull request review (or patch review, pre-commit review, etc. before git.), thats always been the line to hold for protecting codebases with many contributors of varying capability, this is explicitly addressed in the article as well.
You can fight whatever straw man you want. Shadowbox the hypotheticals in your head, etc. I don't get all these recent and brand new accounts just straight up insulting and insinuating all this crap all over HN today.
I told you how it is. Copilot writes crap descriptions that just distract from the actual code and the intention of the change. If your commit messages are in any way better than that, then please enlighten us rather than calling me a bot.
