Yes, different people have different desires when it comes to their living situation. Your comment does however come across as dismissive of living outside of a city. “Parks” for instance…from my experience, a city would not be where I’d first look for this.
Sorry, I'm not trying to dismiss anyone. I do love cities, but that's my thing.
> “Parks” for instance…from my experience, a city would not be where I’d first look for this.
Cities often have all sorts of interesting and varied parks, often beautifully designed, with public art, museums, etc. Look at Central Park, Golden Gate Park, the parks along the lake in Chicago, etc. Look up all the parks in Manhattan alone. LA has wild valleys near the Hollywood Hills. And if you look around, you can find lots of wonderful, unknown, small parks. The economy of scale - resources to design, build, etc. - can lead to some wonderful spaces.
Obviously, out where there's more space, there are larger undeveloped areas; those differ from urban parks.
I also live in a country without full-term fixed mortgages, however we also don’t have a secondary market for mortgages. AFAIK these two things are at the very least not entirely orthogonal, and to be blunt I don’t think anyone is looking to the US as a source of inspiration for that aspect of your mortgage system.
I certainly don’t want to discount from the point this article is making, but as someone with a significant visual impairment, but that is not completely blind, I legitimately can’t imagine using anything that’s not macOS these days. This is coming from someone that grew up using Windows, and had an extensive Linux phase…including Gentoo.
Screen readers are a bit of a lightning rod for accessible technology interest, almost entirely because most people have some sort of sick curiosity. “How can someone use a computer so differently to the way that I do!?”. Of course, most of these people stop here, never bothering to try using a screen reader to navigate whatever they’re making. They might open VoiceOver, realise they don’t know how to intuitively use it, and fumble around with trying to close it again. This tends to have the effect of sucking any motivation out of the room. Most people won’t then go and meaningfully improve their screen reader experience, but they also won’t think to address any other accessibility shortcomings, especially visual ones, because “blind people use screen readers!” Is the pervasive meme.
This is part of why I am all in all so happy with how Apple has been going in this space lately. An obvious result of co-design / consultation, or dare I say it…hiring people with disabilities. Addressing accessibility concerns that the stereotypical SV techie has never even heard of.
OP is describing a very long standing bug which they describe as: "This “Safari not responding” behaviour when using VoiceOver dramatically impacts ..."
OP seems to be happy with the functionality of VoiceOver on Mac but not with the stability of VoiceOver on Mac.
You don't mention what actually works for you (on your Mac - you do mention that), only that you disagree with the article.
Im going to pile on here and implore you as best I can to check your priors here. You are coming across as incredibly rude and unhinged. I’m sorry that a blind person…hurt you at some point? I don’t even know. But your behaviour is frankly unacceptable.
I don’t see it as deceitful and I’d eat my hat if most other users didn’t agree with me.
I expect that when I click a search result link, that Google will be tracking that I’ve done this.
I also appreciate being able to search for something, right-click-copy a link, and send it to someone, without it being covered in tracking cruft.
> right-click-copy a link, and send it to someone, without it being covered in tracking cruft.
That’s exactly the use case Google breaks, though: The link gets covered in tracking cruft and it gets very hard to tell where it even leads from just looking at it.
This may be a Chrome vs Firefox issue, as Firefox doesn’t support the ping attribute for a (link) elements in HTML. The ping attribute allows sending a POST request in the background to arbitrary URLs when a link is clicked.
How does the fact that most links aren’t phishing links play into anything? Maybe we don’t need AV because most files aren’t viruses? You had enough of a point without this.
> Maybe we don’t need AV because most files aren’t viruses?
Since you used that example...
How would you feel if everyone in their neighborhood got assigned a private security officer that sits in their apartment doorway all day and notes who comes and goes? The company argues that it's to protect from the thieves and fraudsters, and indeed there are always some break-ins or grandparents scammed somewhere. Oh, and everyone gets an officer free of charge - it's paid for by the ads they wear on their vests and that play regularly on their walkie-talkies. Would you trust the security company that all the notes, taken by a person in the privileged position of observing everything in your home, will only be used to prevent crime and nothing else, ever?
Back to your example - AV companies are quite shady these days, and their products not all that useful relative to costs/damage and snooping they do.
This is a weird example you posed because it's a real thing. It's called a doorman and it's very popular in new york (it's considered a luxury to have one)
Indeed. Except in that poster's example, imagine the doorman isn't merely looking over the building. Every door in the building has a doorman. The doorman to the building is more palatable because it's beyond their capacity to monitor all activity and movement through the building.
The League of Meticulously Documenting Doormen on the other hand is a much greater threat to privacy. We're increasingly in jeopardy with regards to implementing that. The more we don't push back against unnecessary logging, the bigger the problem we're building socio-technically.
I see your point, but comparing this with an off-line AV scanner with a regularly updated internal database (assuming that's what you meant) is not an apt comparison.
The analog would be an AV scanner that sends a list of your files/hashes to a centralised server somewhere, so that the company can target ads related to your file contents (or sell your data...), in addition to warning you about viruses.
Agreed that % true positive is not a factor in whether or not to have a given security feature. But it is merely convenient that the vast majority of the usage of this "link protection" feature would benefit Google/MS and not the customer/user (assuming that Google/MS are data mining, which is yet unproven in this use case).
> The analog would be an AV scanner that sends a list of your files/hashes to a centralised server somewhere, so that the company can target ads related to your file contents (or sell your data...), in addition to warning you about viruses.
Is there an antivirus program that doesn't do this? I've been assuming for a very long time that windows defender does, Norton/McAfee/Avast too. I'd be shocked if they didn't
I largely agree with you, but GP didn't specify they are talking about an off-line AV scanner. In fact Google itself has an online AV scanner that scans attachments in gmail, files downloaded in Drive, etc.
As someone that’s done both, you are certainly overstating the suffering endured by not compiling your own Python. I very much believe that this is a consequence of your ideology rather than any indication of frequency.
Suffering doesn't come from not compiling. Suffering comes from inability to trust your system. Not everyone suffers from this. Most don't care. But then the question is why would they care in the case described by the article, if they don't give a rats ass in general?
