I still remember when all we cared about were the technical contributions that people made. Now it seems like the ideologists from one extreme side of the political spectrum have infiltrated the technical communities and are destroying them in the same way as they are this country.

Stop with the culture wars identity politics shit: it's what's tearing this country apart.

Of all the days in the year to have to write a comment like this on...!

> I still remember when all we cared about were the technical contributions that people made.

Well yeah, but then Hans Reiser killed his wife and ruined it for everyone.

That actually is a good example of what has changed because AFAIK there was no "cancel Reiser" movement or anything of that sort when it happened, just a lot of surprise and some long-running jokes ("MurderFS", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_fil... ).

You're not wrong.

Unrelated but also not: That's why the left introduced the "Code of Conduct" everywhere, to enable useful idiots like that one.

This is not relevant to the topic at all.

It's not, but people should be aware of where they get their news sources.

If this is his twitter, it looks like he's changed:

https://twitter.com/BryanLunduke

That looks like a parody account. This is the real one: https://twitter.com/TheLunduke

that's actually really funny.

At this point I can't really tell which is the parody.

I've seen that and I believe he felt he had to do so to maintain his readership after being called out for his bigotry so often of late. I for one don't believe he's changed at all, but I don't personally know the guy so I can't say for sure he hasn't. Anyway, I'll still refuse to read his articles just to be sure I'm not supporting a bigot with page views.

As mentioned above that's apparently a parody account that fooled me. His real Twitter shows he's still the raging bigot he always was.

Here's the fun thing: I have opted out of blind mailers from the USPS, yet I got one of these Brave mailers last week with my name on it (I'm in the Atlanta area). Just one more reason of many for me to never, ever let Brave near any of my devices.

That sounds like an unhealthy paranoia.

Which seems more likely? The USPS is delivering spam mail against the wishes of the recipient (I still get spam mail weekly despite opting out) or a privacy-focused company is snooping on your devices to steal your personal info (so they can send you mailers?).

> or a privacy-focused company is snooping on your devices to steal your personal info (so they can send you mailers?)

I never said that. I don't want Brave on my devices due to their past bad behavior: lying, stealing money from creators in their affiliate program, redirecting legitimate links to shady crypto sites, running a crypto pyramid scheme, and so on. This is just the latest in a long list of reasons not to use their software.

Brave doesn't harvest or collect any user data; we explicitly requested that no names be printed on these mailers (which was the case prior to this recent batch). You're mistaken about the other issues as well (they are every bit as overblown and misrepresented as this present issue).

"Stealing money from creators" is quite misleading. When Brave held its token sale in 2017, we allocated 300M tokens to the User Growth Pool. Shortly thereafter we began staking Brave users with tokens to identify creators for whom they would like to offer support. Brave's UI showed a check-mark for verified creators, and nothing for unverified creators (we naively followed the Twitter model).

Some users took the BAT they received from Brave, and attempted to tip it to unverified creators (which landed those tokens in an omnibus settlement wallet). The UI/UX caused a great deal of confusion towards the end of 2018, leading to monumental feedback from several content creators, including Tom Scott of YouTube. Tom's insights gave us the direction we needed to overhaul the Rewards (called 'Payments' at the time) system in major ways. Ultimately, Tom approved of the changes. But note, no money was ever stolen from any creator. Additional details are provided in our 2018 blog post at https://brave.com/rewards-update/.

It was also never the case that Brave was "redirecting legitimate links to shady crypto sites," either. You're referring to our Partner and Affiliate Links in Suggested Sites. That is, if you typed "bitcoin" into the address bar, prior to any network activity, Brave could list (among other options) an affiliate link to binance.us. The user could then decide to visit the bitcoin-related property using Brave's affiliate link, or disregard the suggestion entirely. This feature is off by default in Brave today, but you can read more about it on our blog at https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/.

I appreciate the attempt to explain your company's bad behavior, but I'm not convinced. And to be fair, you're not alone in making mistakes in the arena of privacy and security; all the major browsers have privacy-averse settings and "anti-features". The difference with your company is that you falsely advertise yourself as the one true private browser, while simultaneously profiting from your users' personal data. It's a lie, it's a scam, and it's morally reprehensible. You only fixed the issues I brought up after being caught and publicly shamed over them; if you hadn't been caught out you'd likely still be doing those things today. Shame on you.

This is disingenuous at best. The browser itself is open source but show me the source for your data collection servers and crypto scheme servers. What's that? It's not open source? Imagine that!

If any data is being collected and stored on servers, it would first need to be transferred off the installed client (the instance of Brave running on the user's device). Network analysis would capture this (as it does with Google, Bing, Firefox, and other browsers). But you don't see this with Brave, because it does not take place. Again, please consider the review of a reputable source: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf

I guess I'm really old school but I just have a spreadsheet for my budgeting, with formulas and charts I've written and maintained over the last 25 years. It's gone from old Microsoft formats (xls/xlsx) to ODS, to Gnumeric, back to ODS, and now I use Apple's Numbers since I have a Mac and an iPhone, and iCloud web works on pretty much any device with a browser I might have in front of me. If I do ever feel like ditching my Mac and going back to an open source OS, I can just export it to ODS again and all my formulas and tools transfer over (I don't use anything proprietary from Numbers, though color fills don't always match right up).

I am salaried with weekly payout, and so I have a weekly chart for where my money goes on payday (bills/loans/cards/savings), an amortization schedule for each account that allows me to see how extra payments will affect the payoff and interest, and a brainstorming sheet for planning future large purchases (cars, maybe a bigger house one day). I can do pretty much anything with this that I could with Firefly III or a paid solution, but (for me at least) this is less hassle and my data stays between me and Apple's iCloud server; I trust them enough with that basic data to not bother with maintaining and securing a VPS just to balance my budget.

The difference is that this unit does the AC-DC conversion inside itself, whereas your DC-DC power supply relies on an external AC-DC brick that is likely the same size as this entire self contained unit, if not larger.

If you're dealing with solar or a vehicle you may already have DC available; too bad it can't take -48v which some racks still supply.

Except the M1 Air and 13 inch M1 Pro reverted to left side only (the new models with M1 Pro/Max chips have an extra USB-C on the opposite side). It's my only real gripe with the M1 laptops compared to older Intel Macs.

Of course, the Framework is the polar opposite of the M1 Macs' locked down "appliance" feel. I'm enjoying the progress being made with OpenBSD and Asahi Linux on the M1 platform, but the hardware itself remains impossible to upgrade or repair for mere mortals. The Framework is the pinnacle of truly owning your laptop while not sacrificing speed and a crowd pleasing design.

The Airs with usb-c always only had them on one side, didn't they? So did the low-end (two port) 13" MBPs; I have a 2016 Intel one with the same issue.

I agree wholeheartedly in principle, but the reality is that it's nearly impossible to escape Google getting their hands on yours and your correspondents' messages at some point. So many businesses (and third party email providers!) use Google's services on the back end, and many relays out there are owned by Google/Alphabet even if it's not readily apparent, that the only way to even attempt to avoid them is using encrypted email. Unless everyone you communicate with (including companies, governments, and other organizations) is willing to only communicate via encrypted email as well, it's a lost cause.

No, the perfect is the enemy of the good here. "Email is insecure anyway and Google is big, therefore it's ok to give the adversary 100% of the plaintext" is not sound logic.

This is not some principled stance, it is a clear and practical command: stop using these services.

If your personal email address ends in @gmail.com, you are doing it wrong.

I'm not saying you shouldn't give up Google services; I did. I'm just saying the unfortunate reality is that you'll never fully escape them.

Or, as with anything else privacy related, outside of intellectual bubbles like HN the vast majority of people don't think twice about giving up unnecessary PII to a payment processor because they naively think the entity won't sell or leak their information. Even those who see conspiracies around every corner somehow constantly fall victim to identity theft due to negligence, and divulge way too much information for their own privacy and safety every day.

A movie quote springs to mind: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Or as is even more often the case with HN:

In practice, “Date of Birth mandatory” is a merchant controlled setting in Klarna [0]. I’ve used Klarna for card countless times and never hit a site that requires it. I’m guessing GP saw it once and never bothered to update his dataset (a surprisingly coming problem among us intellectuals)

[0] https://www.klarna.com/assets/sites/6/2021/09/20095942/user_...

Nice.

So I've followed up and called one of the retailers to ask why it's mandatory and got "We use Klarna and Klarna requires it, but you can enter a fake one and still get through as it's not verified.". This is awd-it.co.uk which was one of the two merchants in which I encountered it.

I suspect they're wrong though, and that you are right. Klarna didn't require this, but someone at this company configured it. Perhaps it's something about PC components for gaming computers, some kind of data gathering that helps protect against kids using their parents card.

There wasn't a way that I could configure not to give it though... I'm just a customer. Whilst I could use a fake date I'm more likely to treat this as a "your data is about to go to another third party" red flag and shop elsewhere still.

Thanks for the info. I wonder if, now or at some point in the past, Klarna had mandatory customer DOB as opt-out rather than opt-in for a default card processing setup on the merchant facing side, and many small businesses in my experience either don't have IT staff or it's their cousin's wife's uncle doing IT for them on the cheap, and they just don't see it or understand its significance.

I know there were dozens of switches to flip when we switched to a new storefront and shopping cart vendor a few years ago, and I missed a few initially despite my experience with setting those up in the past. That's what sandboxing is designed to catch, but I can picture PHBs in every industry saying "damn the testing, full speed ahead!" with no thought for consequences.

This is fine for you and your use case, but some of us (as pointed out in the article) are forced to stay with BIOS either due to owning legacy hardware that is still fully functional and even necessary, or because we use VMs and/or hosted services that require BIOS and don't support UEFI, or both. I'm one of those; I use a few legacy machines locally and I have VPS instances hosted with Vultr.

Granted, I don't use Fedora so this doesn't directly affect me yet, but the Linux community has a history of too-early adoption of ideas started at Fedora (systemd, pulseaudio) that take years to reach production-ready status, if ever. At some point those of us who still use legacy hardware at home/work will be forced to either throw out perfectly good machines, or switch to a holdout distro like Slackware or Void (not that there's anything wrong with either of those) and lose valuable time moving our workflow. We'll also be at the mercy of our hosting providers as they decide whether to overhaul their entire hosting backend, or else drop Fedora and any other distro that follows their lead.

I get that UEFI is the future of bootstrapping, but it's too early to pull the plug on BIOS.

It seems that way. I did a very simple one: "A car ran a stop sign in front of me and I flipped them the bird."

I got one NTA: "They shouldn't have run the stop sign!", and one YTA: "You shouldn't flip someone the bird just because they flipped you off, you should pull alongside them, assess the situation, and apologize if necessary."

Slightly off-topic (sorry!) but have you considered testing/porting to the BSDs, especially since you have a macOS port? I'm particularly interested in an OpenBSD port. I may try cloning the repo and building it myself; SDL2 and CMake are available on that platform.