Really I think it got that rep mostly from people trying to run DOS games or shoddy ports from DOS to early Windows that still relied on a bunch of DOS stuff.
TEPCO dropped the ball pretty massively too, although IMO it should be the government's responsibility to assume that power operators are going to and not allow them to.
A huge amount of industry all over the place ends up like this. The engineers produce the theoretical form of the design, and the tooling up process refines it into a practicable-at-scale reality.
US Intelligence has too long a history of its own largely consequence-free abuses too. Someone else having a surveillance state doesn't make the one at home any better.
I can't speak specifically to the raspberry pi, but generally SOCs like it uses do work like that. Most customers are concerned with the chip's high-level capabilities and actively don't want to touch the lower-level stuff, as it's irrelevant to what they're making.
It is bizarre to me how many problems I've literally never seen before in my life some people on this site can come up with to defend Apple's decisions, especially things like this on a website which purports to be Hacker News.
The cautious configuration and total separation of the Tor browser is the whole reason it was created in the first place. There are an uncountable number of reasons why having it in a normal everyday browser is probably a bad idea.
It sort of aligns with my views on a lot of other Brave projects: neat, and with good intentions, but not necessarily such a good idea when examined in detail.
couldn't agree more. Brave browser is applying startup "break things faster" to user privacy.
All fine and dandy when it is some curious silicon valley engineer playing with new tech at home, but 'selling' that to people at danger that depends on that tech for safety is huge red flag.
Avoid brave browser like the plage. Specially do not contribute your opensource-time to them, but to the projects they use (not chromium though)
The issue around Tor is not a reason to avoid Brave. It has a lot of other good attributes for the common people. And I like it’s attempt to let you support websites while blocking intrusive ads.
It does make you question their sincerity though. It should be in bold, in red at the top of their "tor mode" that it doesn't work as well as the regular tor browser.
Contribute to uBlock and bring no-ads to everyone instead.
having brave control which ads you see, will lead to the same awful situation when adBlockPlus was stolen for profit: any company could pay to be whitelisted.
Is there an ideal circumstance or organizational structure or development process that could allow this to work - and perhaps that is simply necessitating a very large amount engineering and security/QA resources?
> but 'selling' that to people at danger that depends on that tech for safety is huge red flag
The vast majority of users do not need tor for personal safety, therefore avoiding brave because of this issue is a non-sequitur for most people. Ublock origin is great, but brave is one of the only solutions that is giving a legitimate attempt at solving the root issues in a pragmatic manner. Everything else (including ublock origin, as good as it is) is just cat and mouse.
Even if the conclusion is that life today is better than in the past, so what? Congratulations. Their lives were different than their predecessors too. Is the whole point to self-congratulate, or should we recognize and address today's problems?
>Their lives were different than their predecessors too.
You don't have to go back far to get to a point where this wasn't really the case. Before the industrial revolution, life for the common person was rather similar to how their parents and grandparents lived. Estimates of GDP per capita would give you a doubling or tripling of it over a period of 1000-2000 years. A similar increase happened in the US in the last ~50 years.
Life is improving so much that we take it for granted. We've seen many facets of life significantly transformed in our lifetimes - eg social media, video games, the internet as a whole.
Of course we should look at today's problems, but we should also look at the past for perspective. If we make a mountain out of every molehill then we might end up regressing.
The issue is often that people with dystopian visions of the present and utopian visions of the past/future rarely have policies that are effective at actually redressing problems.
Routinely their dystopianism drives them to revolutionary ideas whose net effect has always been mass impoverishment.
And people with utopian perceptions of the present tend to have policies that ignore underlying problems until they boil over into revolutions.
Fixating on how great the present is accomplishes nothing and appeals to almost nobody.
A typical feudal serf probably lived better than a hunter-gatherer, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't want to be free, and telling them that things are better is just avoiding the question.
Any analysis which fixates on things being uniformly better or uniformly worse will paint an incoherent and unhelpful picture. A realistic look at things involves looking critically at present and past policy in a nuanced manner, even in areas where things may be better.
