The BlackBerry, Rebuilt, Lives to Fight Another Day - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/the-blackberry-refreshed-lives-to-fight-another-day.html?pagewanted=1&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

<comment><USER5> I've been using the BB10 for a few months now, building software for the launch. I was extremely skeptical at first, but after the push to launch, I have a lot of positive things to say about the device and the OS.

1) Its fast, memory management isn't an issue for developers like it is on Android or even iOS.

2) Its smooth and multitasks well. QNX does deliver here big time.

3) Its solid -- during the Alpha and Beta stages, I never had a crash -- this is, looking back, astounding.

4) Native development is not as demanding as Android or iOS. The dev ecosystem guides you well to just the right balance between native UI elements and customization and you can do it in a language you likely already have knowledge of. (Java, QT, HTML5, C++)

Overall -- it was a pleasure to build and launch apps on BB10 -- which is more than I have to say for other ecosystems. I'd describe it as the the ease of developing the display layer for a Windows Phone app mixed with the flexibility and depth of an Android app and the power of iPhone hardware.

Background: I'm a hardcore iPhone user who is in the mobile industry and regularly uses hundreds of mobile devices.

<comment><USER6> > "memory management isn't an issue for developers like it is on Android or > even iOS."

Memory Management is a issue on android development? Ive been dev'ing for android for > 2 years and i have never had a memory management issue. Not saying there isnt one, but i would imagine you would have to be doing something wrong for it to be an issue.

> " Native development is not as demanding as Android"

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "demanding"? The vast majority of android apps happily spend there entire lives never touching native code...

<comment><USER7> Memory managment was a pain in the butt when I was developing for Android. Mainly because apps (then) were limited to a 16MB heap and bitmaps would allocate memory automatically but need to "reminded" to release it afterwards. The only real way to know if you'd exceeded the limit when you tried to open a bitmap was to catch the OutOfMemory exception and retry with a lower sampling of the image. So the simple act of trying to read an image into memory and display it turns into a complex memory management scenario. Good times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a Canadian, I really do wish them well. It's hard to imagine Waterloo's startup ecosystem existing without a large anchor company like RIM and Mike Lazaridis (RIM founder) is one of the most inspiring philanthropists alive.

Having said that, they're going to have a tough time. Realistically it's possible for them to take a solid #3 spot behind Google and Apple, however Microsoft is ready to pour billions to make sure they're that #3. In fact, it's not clear whether there is a #3 exists at all, although I suspect it does.

Lastly there's the question of whether BlackBerry can remain independent. A good BB10 launch will make them an attractive target - perhaps Amazon is tired of being chained to Android.

<comment><USER9> It's Apple's game to lose. Tim Cook is exactly the _wrong_ person to be CEO. He seems like a tweaker, someone who dusts and sweeps in the corners but won't move the furniture.

On the other hand, Blackberry (it feels weird not calling them RIM) are going all out. Their innovations to BB10 will make Tim Cook look even more uninspired.

EDIT: The above comment is my prediction of the public's perception of Tim Cook in the next few months (an otherwise nice guy and good leader). Not gospel. But it will be interesting to watch how BB10 does and how Apple responds.

<comment><USER10> > Their innovations to BB10

Which innovations?

<comment><USER11> True Multitasking, Blackberry Balance, Timeshift Camera, Physical Keyboard, Hub, Browser built in HTML5, Mobile Screen Sharing... Did you read the article?

<comment><USER12> Everything you just stated is gimmick. Physical keyboards are over.

And the "true multitasking" sort of works (pretty much as well as Anroid) only because they bolted 2GB of RAM onto the thing.

BlackBerry are dead. The OS looks like amateur hour, the icons look inspired by Windows XP, and even their default font is badly rendered everywhere. The Android emulator is unusably slow (nothing like what it was in the desktop simulator) and pointless. It should be removed.

It's a decent beta, but that's about it. They're done.

<comment><USER13> > _"And the "true multitasking" sort of works (pretty much as well as Anroid) > only because they bolted 2GB of RAM onto the thing."_

Well, yeah. So what?

As an iOS user I'm _salivating_ at the thought of actually being able to IM people properly. Right now invariably it goes something like this:

[push notification: you have a new message!]

[tap on notification]

[IM app launches]

[go get a coffee]

[IM app launched! Retrieving your new messages...]

[go get a sandwich]

[here's that message!]

Real multitasking is a _huge_ win, even a diehard iOS user like myself will admit. I don't care if they had to summon Cthulhu to make it work - but as long as it does, it's a great selling point.

<comment><USER14> Then that's a strange quirk of iOS- Android handles it just fine. The point is that they aren't the only OS with "true multitasking" out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I guess my Note II is not the only one who has this features: " A subtle light blinks above the screen to indicate that something — a text, an e-mail message, voice mail, a Facebook post — is waiting for you. Without even pressing a physical button, you swipe up the screen; the Lock screen lifts like a drape as you slide your thumb, revealing what's underneath." (I guess at least all high end Samsung phones has them.)

Also, Apple keep getting a whole lot for free: "...you give up some very attractive ecosystems, like the way Apple synchronizes your calendar, messages, and photos on all your gadgets. Or, for Android, the similar conveniences of Google Voice and Google Maps. "

My Android phones have been syncing photos and calendars for years. I can't remember exactly but I am fairly certain they did it before iCloud as well.

<comment><USER16> The nexus 4 has the light and no-unlock summary as well. The light even changes colors depending on the app which generated the notification (e.g. facebook messages have a blue light).

<comment><USER17> As does my galaxy nexus. Love the color coded notification light.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's interesting now is that Apple, BlackBerry and Microsoft now offer integrated hardware/software platforms. It's become similar to the way the console market has been between Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft.

Makes one wonder what's going to happen with Android.

This isn't so much vendor vs vendor. It's higher than that - the war here is between integrated/closed and discrete/open systems on the client.

The virtue re:integrated/closed systems is that the companies very survival depends on these systems, so they have the best motives in providing value/service, and aren't being steered by outside influences. The virtue re:discrete/open systems is that they encourage learning and exploration, and offer transparency.

It's not so clear in which direction things will go over coming years. Both the integrated/closed (Windows, Consoles), and discrete/open (Web, Android) are models that have proven themselves to work.

Google's doing a lot of brave work pushing in the direction of discrete/open, and regardless of outcome, it's something commendable. My only worry there is regarding their hardware partnerships. The thing with the iPhone, Lumia, and BlackBerry products is they're beautifully designed, and these designs just keep getting more refined. It's like having a games console with a controller design - all users/games know it's there, and can rely on that design, even between hardware iterations whilst other elements are improved.

Microsoft did a lot of great work getting Windows to play well with not just consumers but hardware vendors too, and more or less delivered on the promise of putting a computer on every desk. Google's probable aim of putting a smartphone in person's pocket is even loftier(expense being the main hurdle for many of the world's 7-8 billion people), yet given their positioning and partnerships, they are perhaps best positioned to deliver on this promise.

So perhaps it won't play out like the console market at all.

The thing is, if smartphones get largely commoditized by Android like PCs were largely commoditized by Windows, and you can buy something perfectly decent for $300 (and you already can in something like the Nexus 4), are going to want to or need to pay more for what is perhaps only a marginally better designed product?

And of course then there's Amazon too. Interesting times ahead.

<comment><USER19> > _What's interesting now is that Apple, BlackBerry and Microsoft now offer > integrated hardware/software platforms. It's become similar to the way the > console market has been between Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft._

You forgot Google. They have Motorola, and they _are_ going to be highly integrated with Android, no matter what they say in public.

Also Samsung has gotten pretty integrated with Android, too. Sure they add the latest "Android features", but on their own time, and it's not the main priority for them. They'd rather ship with an older version but filled with their own apps, features and technologies. It's not that different from Amazon actually, except that they still have to adopt some standards set by Google to make sure they don't fragment to ecosystem too much, but they also get the benefit of access to the Play Store and the Android community (Amazon doesn't appeal to the Android community as much anymore).

<comment><USER20> It will be interesting to see what happens with the Motorola acquisition.

Right now, Samsung _is_ Android to a large degree. They're the only Android phone vendor that's actually making money, and they're selling a ton of units compared to the other vendors.

I'm amazed RIM has lasted this long. From what I've read I'm pleasantly surprised. I know there is still a small minority that refuses to own a phone without a physical keyboard, and the few I know aren't very happy with the few Android phones they've tried with keyboards. They may be able to get enough of a niche there to hold on and survive a bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not sure why everyone is in love with Blackberry again all of the sudden. It seems like they've launched a feature complete smart phone, but they're all pretty much commodity features now, and certainly anything new they've innovated will be copied by the others within a few months. Who in their right mind would buy a blackberry?

And don't say business, because most sysadmins (myself included) already have plans to move off the Blackberry platform (and have fantasies about the day they can KILL their BES server).

This is all very reminiscent of the whole Palm treo debacle.

Blackberry is dead. Please let it RIP.

<comment><USER21> Are you failing to remember Apple was once in a position in the early 90's when people were calling for the company to die already? In investors eyes as well as the general public's eyes, Apple had no hope and now look at them. Blackberry have released a phenomenal phone, arguably one of the best smartphones to come along in a very long time.

Just because you're planning on moving from the Blackberry platform doesn't mean everyone else is. Unless you speak for the general system administrator crowd, you're making baseless assumptions. And this is nothing like the Palm Treo debacle, Blackberry have not only developed a powerful and beautiful operating system but have built a phone that is of a much higher standard than Apple's increasingly irrelevant phones. Blackberry have just stepped up their A-game, nobody could have released a better phone than this at this point in time, not even Apple.

<comment><USER22> "increasingly irrelevant phones" that somehow keep selling more every year.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57565106-37/iphone- wins-51...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57565106-37/iphone- wins-51-percent-of-u.s-smartphone-sales-says-report/)

<comment><USER21> Did you read that article by any chance? Full of assumptions and statistics obtained essentially from asking 250,000 people what phones they bought last year... Those claims were from a sales poll, not any official sales report. All this post is doing is stoking the flames and begging for a raging response from Android and Windows Phone users.

<comment><USER22> I don't have a dog in this race nor was it meant as flamebait. Just pointing out that ever increasing sales of iPhones make me doubt that they're becoming "increasingly irrelevant". Analysts may think that Apple should've sold more, but they also sold more than they've ever sold in a single quarter.

<http://investor.apple.com/results.cfm>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Blackberry supporters keep claiming that there are innovations here. I'll echo what another poster asked: what innovations? It doesn't help their cause when articles like this one claim:

 _Some of BlackBerry 10's ideas are truly ingenious. A subtle light blinks above the screen to indicate that something — a text, an e-mail message, voice mail, a Facebook post — is waiting for you_

Yep. Just like my 3 year old Nexus One.

<comment><USER24> Except this has actually been a blackberry feature for _years_. I'm not sure why this is being advertised as a BB10 feature. I had this 6 years ago on my blackberry phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the question is not really whether BB10 is good enough to succeed, but whether any single-vendor operating system can enter the market now. There are so many separate players all with their own interests that need to be served - carriers, retailers, businesses, 3rd party app developers, etc. Almost none of those parties have a true interest in blackberry succeeding (beyond the anemic reason that 'more competition is good'). A device can be the greatest thing on earth, unless it generates overwhelming consumer demand all those 3rd party interests will prevent it ever becoming a huge hit. They will tolerate it but they won't push it like they push the OSes that work in their interests - <USER2> this is why Android works - everyone up and down the chain gets a cut. Unless BB10 figures out a way for that to happen, it just doesn't matter how good it is.

<comment><USER25> "whether any single-vendor operating system can enter the market now" I'm not you can say they are entering the market now...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Any pictures/videos of the UI in action?

Edit:

Thank you.

Seems the UI is a mix of all the current fads. Not a bad thing itself.

<comment><USER27> Engadget has a really decent review of the OS.

Link: <http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/30/blackberry-os-10-review/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The Q10 may be the first phone I have actively desired since the Palm Pre 3 came out. As someone who really can't (won't?) transition away from a hard keyboard this is a godsend. I just wonder whether it will go down the same road as Palm/HP. Solid features and design, but a very limited ability to generate any sort of passion...

</comment><comment><USER29> I wish blackberry all the luck in the world. They acknowledged the problem and did everything they could to develop it.

<comment><USER20> > They acknowledged the problem and did everything they could to develop it.

Well, it seems like they half-assed it the first few times, like the Torch. I'm glad they decided to really do it right and not keep dancing around things.

They came out with a much stronger showing that I expected. There may be hope for them left, and it's always good to have another player to poke at Android and iOS.

<comment><USER29> I dont want Google and Apple to know where I walk, drive and with whom I speak. They already know what I do on my computer and what mails I write. Dont want them to know a more about me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I seriously don't mean to troll, but... It looks like an iPhone.

<comment><AUTHOR> The differences are evident when the phones are placed side by side [http://assets.gearlive.com/blogimages/iphone-5-blackberry-z1...](http://assets.gearlive.com/blogimages/iphone-5-blackberry-z10.jpg)

<comment><USER31> I can't tell if this comment is satirical, and the picture doesn't help.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha I didn't mean it to be satirical, but I can see how it can be interpreted as such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Looks like a black iPhone!

<comment><USER33> Every smartphone looks like an iPhone. What did you think it was going to look like?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> That Time Shift photo feature does sound brilliant! I really want to try that out.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm buying one.

<comment><USER36> I'm astonished to find myself considering one. I was sure the company was going to die.

The killer feature, for me, is that if this report is correct, they finally have an acceptable soft keyboard implementation. I'm not even that crazy about SwiftKey, but it sounds like BlackBerry have improved on it enough to compete with a physical keyboard and maybe even beat it outright.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The proof will be in the apps.

</comment><comment><USER38> I came to read the HN commenta first and things were starting to sound pretty positive. Imagine my abject disappointment when I clicked through to the story and saw a gigantic touch screen.

<comment><USER39> They have 2 models. Read further...

<comment><USER38> Aha! Cool thanks. The Q10. Geez looking at that thing makes me wonder why the hell Motorola aren't investing in improving the Pro+ and the Master. That Q10 looks like a piece of shit.

I LOVE the Pro+ but they're faulty as hell (random reboots, screen freezes etc.) in fact a lot of Motorola's have this problem (judging from various forums). It's basically the only phone in the world I can use - <USER3> form factor and the only usable candy bar qwerty android phone - <USER4> frustrating that they're almost impossible to get and then those you do get, are faulty.

STEP UP MOTOROLA!</comment></comment></comment>


Putting the touch into touch screens - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627575.900-putting-the-touch-into-touchscreens.html

<comment><USER2> pretty cool, wonder if it could be used in reverse -- eg to deduce something interesting about the user such as whether it is the finger of a child or an adult etc.</comment>


The Growing Problem of Video Ad Blocking and What Publishers Are Doing About It - <AUTHOR> https://vertamedia.com/blog/the-growing-problem-of-video-ad-blocking-and-what-publishers-are-doing-about-it/ <comment><USER2> Companies like "Vertemedia" still don't get it.

The internet is not a television. Many people gave up TV years ago and will never go back.

Interruptive advertising is a thing of the past.

Also, they didn't mention the history of Hulu and adblockers. About six months ago, for $4 extra per month, you could watch Hulu without ads. Best service I ever upgraded, I paid without a second thought.</comment>


Mint.com should be a platform - <AUTHOR> http://jonah.org/articles/mint_com_should_be_a_platform.html <comment><USER2> I couldn't agree less.

Mint.com is a trusted holder of a LOT of financial data. They should not in any way be a platform.

<comment><USER3> (To be clear: I work with Jonah, so I share his concerns.) I think jonah skimped on one big point: Mint.com as a service is a security feature.

I want to give some financial information to company X. Right now: The way that I do this is by giving that company ALL OF MY SECRET FINANCIAL INFORMATION. Being able to granularly release only a relevant fraction of my information to a third party is much better.

Sure: Giving secret information away without users' consent (a la google buzz): Bad idea. In this case: That's not the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ahh ... isn't Mint build off a platform that allows it to do all of the fancy secure financial banking login and information sharing?

<comment><USER5> In the context of this article, I'd call Yodlee a library, not a platform. He wants to add data to Mint like application developers add data to Facebook. Mint doesn't do anything like that with Yodlee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does anyone decide to trust mint.com? It gives me the security hebbie- jebbies and all their claims of security assurances make the jebbies worse. They're still storing accounts and passwords in a form that can be recovered as plain text, right? I would slap any family members that use it and I'm a Buddhist.

<comment><USER7> When you enter a username and password, they authenticate them with the bank, and receive a token. They store that token, not your credentials.

If I remember correctly, Mint is owned by Intuit, and subject to regular audits by the banks they've partnered with. Considering the relative quality of banking websites, I feel more secure checking my balance on Mint than via the official portal.

<comment><USER8> And if they try anything, I'll be talking to my bank's fraud department within the hour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Better off building it with the standards that mint.com uses, that would be OFX or Open Financial Exchange. Now that mint is at intuit they might not be as agile. Also there are pretty big security issues that OFX have solved. Maybe mint.com could expose your data via OFX.

Mint does have providers that they get the OFX data from, these are pluggable. But the product that is mint is all the metadata about the purchases not just the exchange. I can see how this would be beneficial but also how it might harm mint's reputation if anything were to happen with failed security.

<comment><USER10> mint is built off of yodlee's service (<http://yodlee.com/>) which does all of the communication with banks. i'm not sure if they're even using OFX anymore because they don't authenticate the same way (mint doesn't require your bank logins).

<comment><USER9> I didn't realize mint used a third party (Yodlee) for that. Currently many banks only provide that type of access (OFX). I use mint and it requires bank logins though...

Looks like Yodlee uses OFX and screen scraping? Doesn't seem so safe: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=830236>

<comment><USER11> I remember hearing a rumor once that Yodlee had any army of employees whose primary job was to update the screen scraping scripts. Make no mistake - getting this data out is very messy. but given a choice between messy and not having it at all, I'd settle for messy :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Whether or not it's mint or some middleware, the point is: There're lots of interesting thing you can do with pieces of financial data. There are also lots of security implications. Handing the security problems off to one company (say, mint) and still being able to have access to all the metadata (without the ability to, say, leak your customers' account data) would be dandy. From a consumer standpoint: That's much better than giving all of that secret information to every company that's interested in accessing it.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't think mint should add any features like the ones discussed in the article.

I currently use mint and am very happy with it. I chose to use mint.com over some other sites with similar features because of its simplicity. I find the interface and features incredibly intuitive and easy to use. I think that allowing developers to create "apps" for mint.com could potentially pollute the interface and add a lot of unnecessary confusion to the whole service.

</comment><comment><USER13> _This is part of the reason why stores have "frequent shopper" cards — to help understand what people in their stores are buying._

I've done BI/BA work with an agency for major big box retailers (let's call them HomeBuyColaCo). You'd think they'd be monetizing the poop out of that data, but they're not using the data anywhere to the level they could be, should be, or most people think they are.

</comment><comment><USER14> like...blippy?

</comment><comment><USER15> What mint should be is a bank not a platform.</comment>


Researchers say MS Edge's telemetry has worst privacy of any major browser - <AUTHOR> https://winbuzzer.com/2020/03/17/researchers-say-microsoft-edges-telemetry-has-the-worst-privacy-of-any-major-browser-xcxwbn/ <comment><USER2> Worse than Chrome? That must have taken some doing then.

Ah, here is the key in the article:

"Notably, the study did not look at the web services provided by each of the companies, which also included Google, Apple, Brave, Mozilla. The focus was on the browsers themselves, rather than the ecosystem as a whole, which shows only one important part of the puzzle."

That explains it. Is Brave even 'Major'?

<comment><USER3> It's en vogue to complain about Google, but the stream of data flowing into Microsoft is incredible and who knows if or how it is being used.

They have better competitive intelligence capability than any other company. Microsoft knows the org chart of millions of companies better than they do, knows who talks to who both in email and voice in some orgs, and knows where people work and where they move at work.

The telemetry sent up for Windows and Office is pretty comprehensive and invasive as well.

I wonder what they do with it. I see no evidence of improved product quality.

<comment><USER4> complaining about google is nothing like the whims of fashion. google is a legitimate threat to privacy and liberty, and that should be laid bare repeatedly so we don't get complacent and forget.

facebook as well, to a slightly lesser extent. microsoft is trying to compete on that front (poorly) and should also be called out.

it's not an either-or proposition, but an all-of-the-above one.

<comment><USER5> You forgot to say why Google would be a bigger threat than Microsoft, which is annoying given the person you are responding to clearly listed the reasons why Microsoft is actually collecting more informations than Google.

Also, Microsoft has a much worse historical record than Google regarding protecting their users. For instance, at a time when Microsoft was happyly complying to every rules required to be allowed to do business in China, Google decided to not comply and close its offices in that country, all in the name of privacy.

So yes, bashing Google in the comment section of an article about Microsoft Edge misbehavior certainly sounds like the whims of fashion, if not of organised business propaganda.

edit: beating Android keyboard to oblivion

<comment><USER6> > You forgot to say why Google would be a bigger threat than Microsoft

Microsoft wants you to use their spreadsheet software.

Google is a significant gatekeeper to information which influences what we know and the opinions we form. And that information is increasingly first party, e.g. YouTube, the Play Store.

<comment><USER7> > Microsoft wants you to use their spreadsheet software.

... and windows OS, visual studio, sql server, azure, linkedin, github, bing, skype, etc which all collects data on you. Also, I love that you dismissed their office suite as just "spreadsheet software". It's only the world's ubiquitous office suite used everywhere in the world.

<comment><USER8> The idea behind that comment seems to have been: "MS has a known motive: they want to sell you software and make money. This is a business model I understand, and can deal with being on the other end of." The same argument is used in iOS vs Android debates: why isn't it the same shit, different smell? Because Apple sells you hardware, and Google sells You.

The glib terseness of the comment is a metaphor for the relative harmlessness of the business model. Not indicative of the actual product selection or annual revenue.

I think, anyway...?

<comment><USER7> > MS has a known motive: they want to sell you software and make money.

And the idea behind my comment was : They also want to sell you. Bing, linkedin, github, etc aren't selling you software. Also, windows OS has ads now.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14956540/microsoft- window...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14956540/microsoft- windows-10-ads-taskbar-file-explorer)

> Because Apple sells you hardware, and Google sells You.

Apple also sells you. They sell you to music, movie, etc industry in order for the industry to support apple's platform.

> The glib terseness of the comment is a metaphor for the relative > harmlessness of the business model.

Which I showed was wrong.

It's insane the amount of microsoft and apple support on a tech platform. I guess all the money that microsoft/gates spent on PR truly worked.

> I think, anyway...?

I don't think you thought things through too well... Your argument was basically google sells chromebook/hardware so everything else they do is fine.

<comment><USER6> > Apple also sells you.

By that logic, a shopping mall "sells you" to retail stores. A cinema "sells you" to movie studios. Etc.

<comment><USER7> Only those shopping malls and cinema chains that get you to sign up for something and get your info and have tracking capability. What do you think AMC Stubs A-List program is about?

Apple is worse than AMC or shopping malls since they have much more identifiable data on you ( even more than google in many respects ) and use that to sell you. Not just your data but recommendations/etc.

Apple sells you in the same way google/facebook/microsoft/etc sells you. Collectively and individually.

In the past shopping malls and cinemas used to sell you collectively to retail stores and movie studios. Now many of them can sell you individually to retail stores and movie studios. Something really has gone wrong when there is support for Apple on a tech forum. Usually apple just preys upon non-tech people who like overpriced shiny things. It's strange the amount of "support" apple and microsoft gets nowadays.

<comment><USER6> Oh, I didn't realise you're just spinning conspiracy theories. If any of that were true, we'd know about it. There would be leaks from employees of the companies who are receiving this data from Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is something much more concerning that nobody is mentioning:

Microsoft Edge removed encrypted sync. This sync data can include all of your browser history, which is arguably a much more serious privacy violation.

Chrome allows you to set a separate encryption passphrase for syncing your preferences & history to Google's servers. Edge does not allow this.

<comment><USER10> This feature (end-to-end encrypted sync) is huge for privacy, and nobody knows about it. It's never mentioned when people talk about privacy issues in browsers. It seems like people don't actually care to do slightly inconvenient things that will improve their privacy, they just like to be outraged about it on the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _Chrome, Safari, and Firefox, meanwhile, tag requests with identifiers, but > that information is reset when the browser is re-installed. All send details > of the webpages visited to the backend via auto-complete, but with verifying > identifiers. Chrome is, in this case, are persistent, while Safari's are > ephemeral and Mozilla doesn't have identifiers at all._

First it says, _Firefox tags with identifiers_ , then it says, _Mozilla [Firefox] doesn't have identifiers at all_. What explains this apparent contradiction?

<comment><USER12> to me it seems they may think firefox and mozilla are two different things.

<comment><USER13> Or perhaps Brave was supposed to be one of those items?

Clearly, the article needed editorial proof reading in a few spots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The paper is here: [https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf](https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf). Should we change the URL to it above?

The comments are pretty tied to the claims of the current article at this point.

</comment><comment><USER15> Note there's Microsoft's reply here: [https://winbuzzer.com/2020/03/20/microsoft-responds-to- resea...](https://winbuzzer.com/2020/03/20/microsoft-responds-to-researchers- claim-that-edge-is-the-worst-for-privacy-xcxwbn/)

Apparently this hardware identifier is used to be able to comply with gdpr data deletion requests.

<comment><USER16> Nonsense. You have to track people in order to know that you are not tracking some people?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't understand Microsoft's angle with all of their telemetry in products like Windows, VS Code, Edge, etc.

Microsoft's biggest businesses are;

* Azure

* Software licensing fees (Windows/Office/etc)

* Gaming stuff (XBox, etc)

None of these benefit from having tons of data on their customers. Some of them might even lose sales because of it (do enterprises want their data sucked up into the cloud when using Office or Windows).

Bing Ads make up such a small amount of Microsoft's income that they're pretty much irrelevant.

It seems to me that the rational thing would be to take the Apple approach. Use privacy as a feature that Google can't copy. Take advantage of the fact that one of their biggest competitors is mostly funded by targeted advertising and go where they cannot.

Since Microsoft is not doing that, and they're not stupid I must assume that I am missing something.

<comment><USER18> What a world we could live in if Microsoft was a privacy champion. It would make a massive amount of fans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Title is not ideal - suggest change to "Researchers say MS Edge's telemetry has worst privacy among major browsers"

<comment><USER14> We've changed it above.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/fmydx0/research...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/fmydx0/researchers_say_microsoft_edges_telemetry_has_the/)

<comment><USER20> I'm guessing you want to point out the top comment?

Reddit user CobraCabana wrote:

> This article isn't about the telemetry data it's about the identifiers.

> Edge sends over a unique identifier for the hardware

> Chrome and safari send one based on installation instance. Chrome persists > the identifier safari doesn't

> Firefox doesn't send any identifier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Site posts article about browser privacy while asking if they can send you notifications.

<comment><USER22> At least they ask.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It just makes up for their lack of a major search engine. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say Google knows more about you than Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm starting to think Google PR's favorite channel is the editorial content advertisement.

</comment><comment><USER25> In Microsofts defense - this could simply be due to the authors inability to address the multitude of different data exfiltration surfaces in FF and Chrome

</comment><comment> what-the-grump Am I missing something or the paper is not linked? Or are my ad-blockers blocking something on the page.

Also, how are the virtualized tabs tracked?

</comment><comment><USER26> the company behind the ad and spyware infested Windows 10 continued that abuse with their new browser?

I'm surprised, I really am

</comment><comment><USER27> And I need to remind you that we're talking about Out the Box here, not with add ins and extensions. Brave is capable of installing any extension found in the Chrome web apps page so you probably could tweak it further.

</comment><comment><USER28> Why does this article keep resurfacing everywhere? I've seen it on /r/technology multiple times. I refuse to believe it. Chrome has to have the most telemetry: it is produced by an ad company after all. Of all organizations maintaining major browsers, Google is the most incentivized to collect data. Follow the money.

<comment><USER29> I don't necessarily agree with your argument - I think it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion that either Microsoft and Google could have worse telemetry in their browser.

That said, I noticed the strange behavior around this article as well. I've seen it pop up multiple times in various content aggregators, and the /r/technology mods even removed the post that I happened to notice and comment in.

I'm not sure why, it seemed like a completely reasonable article on its face. But maybe there's something underhanded going on behind the scenes?

<comment><USER28> Google's primary business is telemetry: I'd be shocked if they were worse at it than Microsoft. But I'm willing to accept you might disagree with this point.

Regarding the second point: And I think we agree here, the article is odd. It definitely seems like there's an anti-Edge narrative trying to achieve mindshare.

I should have decoupled my original comment, and only discussed the circulation of the article, as that's more concerning.

<comment><USER30> Google's primary business is telemetry? Explain!

<comment><USER28> A means to an end for serving relevant ads, their bread and butter.

<comment><USER31> Their bread and butter is search ads, my dude. They don't need telemetry for that. They have search keywords. Almost all of their revenue comes from there and the margin there is huge.

<comment><USER32> What source suggests Google's AdWords ads distributed across the entire web (all the AdWords sites that aren't SERPs) don't leverage telemetry and don't drive meaningful revenue?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The worst telemetry of any major browser _so far_ , son.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Since most researchers are unable to see the future, it's generally accepted that such studies are done on the present and/or past.

<comment><USER33> Because it's not possible to see that every version of Windows has invaded your privacy more than every previous version, nor is it possible to extrapolate that they're going to continue down this path unless something stops them.</comment></comment></comment>


Generative Machines - T-zex http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/machines/

<comment> T-zex More info: <http://mflux.tumblr.com/post/29879318929/generativemachines>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Does not work on Chrome on my 2008 laptop.

Annoyingly they suggest that I try using Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER2> Looks like some weird space station plans</comment>


AI Startups in Montreal - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.co.uk/article/best-startups-montreal <comment><USER2> As someone going through the Canadian immigration process right now, it sure seems easier and faster to immigrate to Quebec, either on a work visa or investment. That no doubt will be a huge factor in any explosive growth, truly being the fuel for the fire.</comment>


California Braces for Unending Drought - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/us/california-drought-water-restrictions-permanent.html <comment><USER2> The oddest thing is that engineers came up with a solution to this in the 1960s. Some smart people realized that there is an enormous excess of precipitation in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, and this most of this freshwater flows into the Pacific and Arctic oceans unused. The flow of freshwater runoff in Alaska alone is more than half of the entire runoff of the continental United States. Engineers realized that with a very long aqueduct, they could pump this unused water thousands of miles to the parched Southwest United States. They came up with a viable plan to make this happen. At the cost of $100 billion (the same price as the US interstate system), the aqueduct could pump _10 times the flow of the Colorado river_ , more than enough to completely resolve the region's water problems. The aqueduct would generate billions per year in hydroelectric power, an even more in added economic value. Like the Hoover dam, it would pay for itself within 30 years.

Yet, due to objections from environmentalists, the project ended up going nowhere and few people today have even heard of the project.

If you're interested, there's more on this topic on the Wiki page [1], as well as two videos made in the 1960s about the benefits of NAWAPA.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MibzpJ54do](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MibzpJ54do)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0dsc-341O8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0dsc-341O8)

<comment><USER3> Trump has stated he intends to bring this plan back... (just sayin' :) )

<comment><USER4> The plan is about as feasible as "I will make Apple produce all their products in America", so it's not surprising.

<comment><USER3> Agreed :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was looking for just how expensive desalination would cost, using ocean water.. Google says "[d]esalinated water typically costs about $2,000 an acre foot -- roughly the amount of water a family of five uses in a year."

Here is an article from a few years back, targeting 17 deslination plants by this year's July.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/getting-clean-water-from-the- sea...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/getting-clean-water-from-the-sea-at-a- high-price/)

The ending is so sad. Earlier this year gasoline was at as low as $1.3 here where I live in NYC (or even less I honestly can't remember how low!) Right now the gasoline price is at 2.37 where I live.

> "I do see that water is the next oil," Webber notes, "that water is the > great resource of the 21st century over which battles [will be] fought, > money is invested."

So here is what we need to do. Please invest more into desalination process. Make is so cheap we can produce water at a low cost.

<comment><USER6> Desalination is a bit like smelting aluminium - high energy requirements are kind of built-in due to the basic chemistry.

If you want cheap desalination, look for cheap energy.

<comment><USER2> Desalination is all about cheap energy. Desalination plants produce fresh water at sea level, and that water has to be pumped to higher elevations where people live. It's a hidden, often overlooked, cost of desalination. That makes desalination most economical in flat, low-elevation costal regions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Water Knife: [http://www.amazon.com/Water-Knife-Novel-Paolo- Bacigalupi/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Water-Knife-Novel-Paolo- Bacigalupi/dp/1469298325)

which repeatedly mentions the book Cadillac Desert (which my dad has been trying to get me to read for 15+ years, dads are smart).

</comment><comment><USER8> Just was fined $100 for going over recent usage standards set.. household gallons per month. Was told fees go up should overuse continue. Already swapped for low flush toilets.

<comment><USER9> Funny how they're going after the residential users, who are responsible for a miniscule amount of the overall usage.

<comment><USER10> I know, right? I keep reading about almonds and strawberries and whatnot. I'm all for conserving the water, but if all 40 million of us humans here would get wiped out and replaced by farmer robots, the water usage would not go down by much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Worth noting is that Israel has gone through this already and largely handled their problem. In fact, we have already begun collaboration with them: [http://forward.com/news/national/318721/can-israel-help- cali...](http://forward.com/news/national/318721/can-israel-help-californias- desert-bloom/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Why can't cities buy the lower value/marginal farmers out (growing stuff like Alfalfa, or possibly tree fruits at the end of the useful lifespan of the trees)?

</comment><comment><USER13> The chicken-littles of this world just wont give up. Sure drought will always be an issue in CA but we've had a ton of rain this year, the reservoirs (esp. Shasta) are mostly full [0] and there is a good snow pack [1]. These politicians need to quit their whining and let go of the little powers they gained due to the recent drought.

[0]: [http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.act...](http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action)

[1]: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160330-california...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160330-california- snow-survey-snowpack-water-drought/)</comment>


Study: Brain represents tools as temporary body parts - <AUTHOR> http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/brain-represents-tools-temporary-body-parts-study-confirms-22536.html <comment><USER2> Somewhat surprisingly, you can reproduce part of this result at your desk. (In a hilariously non-controlled, do-not-quote-me manner.)

Rest your right arm on your desk with your palm facing upward. Touch the inner side of your elbow and the tip of your middle finger, using your left hand. At this point, I thought "Wow, my arm is longer than I would have expected it to be."

Now, take a pen in your right hand and use it as a pointing device to follow the words of this sentence. Still holding the pen, replace your right arm on the table in the same position as you used before. Touch your inner elbow and fingertip again. (At this point, my first thought was "Oh crikey it got bigger." Its funny, I actually perceived extra stress in my left arm, as if I were stretching to cover a distance that I had had no noticeable difficulty with 15 seconds before.)

<comment><USER3> Your description could use some figures. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Old hat. The reverse is actually more interesting! The representation of the brain is reflected in body parts. People think about the brain as being the seat of neuroplasticity but your limbs are actually learning patterns, as are your ears, your eyes. Anywhere there are neurons there is learning and memory. This means that 1. sometimes reaction is faster than transmission to and from the brain could allow for and 2. often input is filtered and enhanced before it gets to the brain based on previous experience.

While it's cool to think that we "become one" with our tools, until they can also form a part of this distributed memory grid they will always feel subtly wrong, clumsy, and foreign.

<comment><USER5> After time they really don't feel clumsy at all, that's what is amazing. To get a grasp on just _how_ integrated a tool (Or better, a musical instrument) gets, try using a common device with the opposite hand and feel how clumsy it it feels in comparison. That's the natural pre-integrated state. Part of what is happening is that the brain actually devotes more neurons to the hand that is manipulating the tool. This probably makes up somewhat for the fact that the tool itself has no sensing ability.

The mind map for the hands of professional piano players have many more neurons devoted to the hands than in normal people for instance.

Classical guitar players use their fingernails to great effect when playing to generate widely variable sounds depending on how they employ them. One could argue that you fingernails function much as tools do in this case in the sense that they don't have nerve endings at the tips but instead transmit feeling through vibration down to the nail bed. The same thing is happening on a larger scale when you hold a screwdriver, the resistance and vibration is transmitted down to the hand which senses it. Over time more neurons get devoted to those sensing and manipulating areas.

More info here: <http://health.howstuffworks.com/brain8.htm>

And here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_homunculus>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would be interested in a similar study on how the mind perceives software. The mouse pretty much seems like an extension of the body, but what about the keyboard? I'm typing this message right now without even glancing down once at my keyboard. How does that happen?

What about software that, over time, becomes "muscle memory"? Vim or Emacs, for example. Or UNIX shell tools (grep, awk etc.). What about programming languages? Sometimes I start thinking about problems in terms of whatever programming language I happen to be using at the moment. When I work on a project, I have a feeling of structure. I sometimes visualize OO code as various compartments. How does that work?

</comment><comment><USER7> When reading this all I could think about was Glamdring and the ancient's insistence on the soul of a warrior being embedded somehow in their weapons. I've always had a deep love of circus skills including Staff and Sword play, and remapping my "physio-spatial" model is second nature. The eerie part is when you can actually feel it happening, it feels like the sword/tool forces it's way into your consideration. I can only imagine what it must have been like for the blades and tools of old, with all their might and "magic"!!

</comment><comment><USER8> Reminds me of body-controlled sports, like hang-gliding, snowboarding and motorbike riding: the way the craft responds to body placement really makes it feel like it is part of you.

I'm sure that this effect is separable from human intelligence, and tool-using animals (like chimps using sticks and beavers building dams) feel the same way, because it seems like the simplest way for the mind to integrate tools: after all, a stick behaves as if it were an extension of your hand, so why not reuse existing perceptual and motor control circuitry, rather than constructing entirely new subsystems.

(I'm not saying it's designed, but reuse is more probable than parallel reconstruction from scratch).

</comment><comment><USER9> Heidegger vindicated at last!

<comment><USER10> Don't forget Marshall Mcluhan. He said tools and media were an extension of man as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder what kind of tools this covers. Only things like screwdrivers, toothbrushes, or even things like cars?

<comment><USER12> I would say, cars most definitely yes. And we should not only consider concrete objects even. There's really no principal difference in the way we learn to operate the character in a video game, or an internet browser, from how we learn to walk with our legs and body - it's prediction and feedback just thee same. That's the plasticity of the brain.

I think it's a little misleading to talk about "temporary body parts" however, as if there are some distinct conditions for when a tool is like a part of your body and when it's simply a tool we learn intimately.

"Woa, is this hand really a part of _me_??"

The neocortex really is an amazingly extended phenotype.

<comment><USER13>
      > there are some distinct conditions for when a tool
      > is like a part of your body and when it's simply a tool
      > we learn intimately.

Perhaps these are just different points along a continuum-- all tools (and limbs) are integrated into the body schema to varying degrees. Consider that dancers learn to exert far more exquisite control over their movements than most people do. Another example: a large portion of strength training gains are not simply due to muscle hypertrophy, but to the motor system learning how to recruit the muscles in more coordinated and controlled ways.

Edit: On re-read, it looks like we are agreeing with each other. :-)</comment></comment></comment>


How Top B2B startups are creating case studies to turn leads into customers - <AUTHOR> http://sketchdeck.com/blog/how-top-b2b-startups-are-creating-case-studies-to-turn-leads-into-customers <comment> et-al Maybe I misinterpreted the title, but I thought this was going to be an article about the rise of case studies. Instead, this is a marketer's post (case study..) on how to better _package_ them.

Also, if you happen to work for Sketchdeck, some transparency there would be nice. Your story history is full of Sketchdeck submissions.

<comment><USER2> I also misinterpreted the title

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Shocking to see this at the top of Hacker News.

<comment><USER4> I run a B2B startup and found this to be helpful; it's a marketing / sales area I don't know much about and know I could be doing better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really appreciate the in-depth dissection of actual case studies. Surprised to learn of the lack of CTA..."

<comment> et-al _cough_..

[https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=HackerGarth](https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=HackerGarth)

<comment><USER6> The interesting part is that all of those submissions received only one or two points while this one is at 35 and counting..

<comment><USER7> That's pretty typical pattern for submissions on all topics. Lots of luck involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> wow, hn should bill the submitter for each clickthrough on this one</comment>


Tell HN: Using Gmail? You will be force logged into Chrome - <AUTHOR> So, it turns out Chrome 69 is a lot more than just redesign of the tabs and removal of the www from the url.
I'm using the Mac version of Chrome (Version 69.0.3497.81 (Official Build) (64-bit) to be pedantic).
Up until two days ago, logging into gmail and logging into chrome were two different things, as they obviously are (one is a web service the other is a web browser, to be pedantic again)
I would usually be logged into gmail in the browser, but would only log into Chrome on special occasions and/or with specific accounts.
As of today, if I hit www.gmail.com and log in, I'm automatically logged into Chrome. If I log out of Chrome, I'm also logged out of gmail.
This can't be a bug... can it? <comment><USER2> It started with an older version. Logging into Google automatically linked your Google account to the settings page.

At least in the last version, clearing your private data (ctrl-shift-delete) no longer deleted Google cookies. To completely log out required manually digging into the advanced settings and then rebooting the browser.

Google fundamentally doesn't respect user privacy, and people should use Firefox.

<comment><USER3> I completely switched whenever FF quantum was released to stable. The experience is amazing. I will say I think chrome dev tools are better though.

<comment><USER4> I keep hearing how awesome FF quantum is. I always have a copy of FirefoxDeveloperEdition for the occasional compatibility testing, and I keep coming back to it over the last few months, the last time being yesterday, but it just feels as sluggish as ever, whereas Chrome just feels snappier until there are hundreds of open tabs. Am I using it wrong?

Also, Firefox tabs are as ugly as ever (lots of thick lines), and the search bar drop down is cluttered as hell. I thought I'd hate the Chrome 69 tab style, but I got over it in a couple of hours; whereas for Firefox I simply can't.

<comment><USER2> Try using a large blocklist[1] in your hosts file and installing umatrix[2] and/or ublock origin[3] to block garbage scripts from loading. I don't know if that will help, but that's what I'm doing and Firefox is as fast or faster than Chrome.

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?q=hosts+blocklists](https://www.google.com/search?q=hosts+blocklists)

[2] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/umatrix/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/umatrix/)

[3] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock- origin...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/)

<comment><USER4> I confess that I have uMatrix in Chrome but not FF, but I do use pihole, and it's not really a third party scripts problem, FF feels slower on perfectly clean sites.

<comment><USER2> Maybe it has something to do with the combination of your OS and Firefox versions. I've just tested a few sites (without umatrix, but with Firefox's built-in privacy protection) and they are about the same speed according to the network console. Sometimes Firefox is slightly faster, other times Chrome is slightly faster. (Ubuntu 16.04)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Google calls the feature "Identity consistency between browser and cookie jar" and a Chrome representative on the official Google Chrome Help Forum confirmed that this is the intended behavior.

>This is an intended behaviour if you are using the same Google Account for your Gmail and Chrome. If yes, you'll be signed out of Chrome when you signed out of Gmail account.

...

Good news is that it is possible currently to disable the feature. Doing to breaks the link between the Google Account in Chrome that is used to sync data and Google accounts on Internet sites.

Note: Google may remove experimental flags like the one described below at any time. As long as it turns up when you run the steps below it is supported.

Here is what you need to do:

1\. Load chrome://flags/#account-consistency in the browser's address bar. Google Chrome should display the flag Identity consistency between browser and cookie jar at the top.

2\. Set the flag to disabled with a click on the menu and selecting disabled from the context menu.

3\. Restart the Chrome browser.

Chrome breaks the link between the Google account in Chrome used to sync data and Google accounts that you sign in using the browser on Google sites."

[https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/08/disable-the-sign-out- link-...](https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/08/disable-the-sign-out-link-between- chrome-gmail-and-other-google-services/)

<comment><USER6> Alternatively just get Firefox, use [https://ffprofile.com/](https://ffprofile.com/) once, and stop dealing with Chrome.

Ta-da, no more spyware.

<comment><USER7> Yes, this move is a deal breaker. Defaults matter, so I'm switching to Firefox.

<comment><USER8> I just did the same. After having used chrome since pretty much version 1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Once again G Suite customers get the shaft.

I have a personal Gmail account, and a business G Suite account, and this change makes working with the two accounts a complete pain. All my years of Chrome bookmarks/settings/etc. are associated with my personal account, so I want the browser itself to always be logged in with that identity. But I want to be logged into my business G Suite email account "by default" when I hit gmail.com, when I open Google Analytics, Drive etc. so I don't have to use the account picker a hundred times a day. It just doesn't seem possible. Argh.

I wonder if Google employee accounts were to be considered business G Suite- like instead of consumer Gmail like, all these kinds of problems that constantly keep popping up for G Suite customers wouldn't be fixed overnight.

<comment><USER10> The most straightforward solution is to create a separate Chrome user/profile for your work account. It's a great way to keep your private and organizational accounts completely separate. You can even sync all Chrome settings, extensions, and bookmars though the company account if they allow you to use your own devices.

Unlike Firefox (major pain point btw), you can run Chrome with multiple profiles at once, each in a separate window.

<comment><USER11> Firefox has had profiles since at least 0.8, released in 2004, when it was renamed from Firebird, more than four and a half years prior to Google Chrome's release. This code, however, was inherited from Netscape Communicator 4, released more than a decade before Google Chrome. Hell, Netscape 4 predates _Google_!

However, since the profile code is so old, it is not accessible from the main interface; it must be accessed via a command line flag. Chrome learned from this mistake and exposed it in the graphical interface.

It is utterly false however to say that Firefox does not support profiles.

<comment><USER12> Firefox also has Multi-Account Containers add-on which is much more lightweight than profiles: [https://support.mozilla.org/en- US/kb/containers](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers)

<comment><USER11> Ah, yes, I forgot to mention that. This is basically Firefox learning from Chrome's mistakes after 10 years, just as Chrome learned from Netscape's mistakes. Chrome added in-browser support to profiles, then Firefox added preference and add-on sharing.

<comment><USER13> I don't quite understand your comment. I think you are assuming that Firefox's containers are like Chrome's profiles, but they're not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Related: Google also tightened the link between gmail and youtube. Logging into gmail logs you into youtube too (which is quite pointless at least for me). This had been the case for a while, but earlier it was possible to manually delete youtube cookies, which would log you out of yt but keep you logged into gmail. They removed this workaround a few months ago. My solution to this was to use chrome only for gmail, and use chromium for everything else. This is poor-man's isolation, for what should be a browser feature (like firefox containers). Also, extensions like cookie-auto-delete don't work nearly as well on chrome as they do on firefox due to long standing bugs in chromium that are likely not getting resolved any time soon. More reason to switch to firefox eventually.

<comment><USER15> firefox containers work great for precisely this use case

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If it's a problem you should stop using both gmail and Chrome. Don't support companies that are anti-user.

<comment><USER17> My choice to use gmail was made by my employer.

I like my job.

How am I supposed to pass, again?

<comment><USER16> Sounds like you've made your choice. A bad employer at a job you like is more important than software ethics. No need for my input here. But it _is_ your choice.

<comment><USER18> > A bad employer at a job you like is more important than software ethics.

Using gmail doesn't automatically make them a bad employer. That is incredibly shallow and naive.

This mentality does nothing to help "software ethics" since it forces people to make an extremely unrealistic choice. I wouldn't expect anybody to quit their job over their employer using gmail. You're just pitting more people against the idea of standing up for software ethics by making it about extremes.

It is akin to telling someone, after an oil spill, that they don't care about the planet since they didn't immediately sell their car to quit buying gas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The cynic in me thinks this is in anticipation of GDPR related challenges. Users that accepted a TOS are easier to track (at least, it's easier to mount a legal argument that some tracking and profile linking is ok) compared to users that never accepted anything at all.

next up: push for new standards that favor chrome over other browsers.

<comment><USER20> The gdpr agreement form on websites usually requires you to enable 3rd party scripts and cookies otherwise you get hit with endless popups about it. Someone should make a browser extension that automatically denies every gdpr popup.

<comment><USER21> [https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/](https://www.i-dont-care-about- cookies.eu/)

This one aims to automatically close all such popups. It doesn't "deny" permissions, but that's what content blockers such as uMatrix are for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This kind of chicanery is the reason I won't use Chrome for anything but browsing Facebook.

<comment><USER23> A while ago I switched to Vivaldi. I have never been happier with a browser.

<comment><USER24> Why do you like Vivaldi?

I'm using it but am fairly ambivalent.

<comment><USER25> I use Vivaldi because the CEO is Jon von Tetzchner. Here's a quote from him from a recent interview:

Q: Other browser companies tell us that too many options and features confuse users, and they remove or limit functionality based on that claim. Is that true in your opinion?

A: No. [...]

[https://www.ghacks.net/2018/07/25/an-interview-with- vivaldis...](https://www.ghacks.net/2018/07/25/an-interview-with-vivaldis-ceo- jon-stephenson-von-tetzchner/)

<comment><USER23> I didn't know this one. Love it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This causes a few other problems. For example I use Hangouts Chat (chat.google.com) on my Google Apps account, and I also have a personal gmail. Ever since the change I have to log out from my personal gmail to use Hangouts Chat, because it is looking at my Chrome account and telling me that I'm not part of the organization. I can't switch to the Google Apps account at all.

<comment><USER27> This is why setting up user profiles is handy in chrome. Keep one for work, one for home.

<comment><USER28> This is why it's handy to just use Firefox.

<comment><USER29> firefox's multiple profile support is crap. I actually do want multiple profiles that do things like sync passwords, bookmarks, extensions, themes across machines per profile. AFAIK firefox can't run multiple profiles at once

<comment><USER30> You can run multiple profiles at once in Firefox. I've been doing this for the better part of two decades with Mozilla browsers. You just need to add the no- remote option to your launcher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> A typical tendency in distasteful projects: couple everything, remove choice. Make it one-size-fits-all.

Switching to Chromium.

<comment><USER32> Chromium was previously downloading a binary blob on its own, which is a bit upsetting:

[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909)

[https://lwn.net/Articles/648392/](https://lwn.net/Articles/648392/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9724409](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9724409)

<comment><USER33> I've posted this a few days ago, but I switched from Chrome to Chromium to Firefox to GNOME Web (aka Epiphany) and it's everything I wanted: a stable and mature WebKit browser for all users (not just tech workers) with Firefox sync integration and no Google bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> To make it worse, the Chrome account is always user id = 0. You can't have other account logged in first, then log into Chrome -- it will kick out the first account. This breaks all bookmarks that use particular user, i.e. contain /u/1 or /u/2\. What a mess.

</comment><comment><USER35> It probably is not a bug

Though "Chrome integration" with Google is pointless at best and an awful user experience.

I made the mistake of logging in w/ Google on Chrome mobile. Resulting in all my bookmarks being synced on the phone (because _of course_ I want my desktop bookmarks on my phone. Obviously. Thanks Google). This is a mistake I'm not doing again.

<comment><USER36> Most people _do_ want that, though. They literally want Google to sync everything for them. Makes sense to me, I don't see your POV to be super common, honestly, except maybe amongst the die hard tech people of hn and such.

<comment><USER35> In mobile I want/have the bookmarks that make sense for mobile usage. I believe this applies to most people.

<comment><USER37> Which is why there's a seperate folder in Google bookmarks for mobile bookmarks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's not a bug -- it's asshole design.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is just a grab at getting more user data. Where are all the Google employees who jump on any mention of Google to defend it with disclosures?

<comment><USER40> How is it more data? This only affects people who choose to set up Google accounts and then log in to them.

<comment><USER39> What do you mean? I have a gmail account but don't want Google to have my browsing history. How is that so hard to understand?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If you have gmail, consider using an imap client. it might take a bit of tweaking the configuration, but i'd say it's worthwhile.

<comment><USER42> They'll get rid of that loophole next. Monopolies doing monopoly things.

<comment><USER43> RIP federation-friendly XMPP gChat

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I thought I had this experience years ago, I'm surprised this is only happening now.

I use an email app (just regular Mail on the mac) to access my Gmail. Your email is stored and synced locally so it is accessible offline, and you don't get these shenanigans. Also I use Firefox.

But let's be honest, even if you aren't logged in, and aren't using Chrome, at this point if Google is not recognizing you it is only because they are pretending not to. I'd bet they have a pretty good record of my internet activity.

<comment><USER45> What they mean is to log into the sync feature which is part of Chrome .

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This has been around for a long time. You've only just noticed it. It's time you accept that Chrome is spyware and start using Firefox instead.

</comment><comment><USER47> huh...so that's why chrome suddenly wants to sync my bookmarks to my gmail username.

Firefox it is then. This is a little too shady for my liking.

</comment><comment><USER48> I stopped using Chrome entirely six months ago. Firefox it is!

</comment><comment><USER49> Firefox Quantum is really, really good. I was a Chrome user for years but now use Firefox at home and work.

A+++ would recommend.

</comment><comment><USER50> I was searching for apartments on zillow.com yesterday and a login pop up came up- which included another box giving me option to sign up with my Google addresses. Here's a screenshot: [https://i.imgur.com/dYtg5u6.png](https://i.imgur.com/dYtg5u6.png)

It did seem strange to me but I didn't bother because I was busy with the search. Now after reading this post this certainly does not seem strange anymore.

Edit: Like OP, I never logged in to Chrome, only on gmail.com.

<comment><USER51> Saw that for the first time yesterday. Was really, really off-putting. Felt like the website I was visiting knew about all of my Google accounts.

The Chrome Dev team is off the rails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> For long already I use many personas/users of Chrome simultaneously. It's very useful. Especially when you create a dedicated shortcut to a service/web-site on a desktop or even pin it to the taskbar. So I have direct Gmail icon on my taskbar that launches GMail as a standalone headless window and for a particular Chrome persona. Next is another GMail icon (it's possible to change icons if you need or turn on in W10 taskbar settings illustration of Chrome persona in the bottom right corner) with a different account via different Chrome user. They both work simultaneously. For social accounts I use one persona, for business another, for news and entertainment third. So every session very comfortably is saved and loaded only to a selected persona when I start the session. Since any link in any tab could be opened via a different persona/user it's not a problem to open a link from twitter or facebook in completely different persona where I'm not logged in for socials and basically incognito for the services.

</comment><comment><USER53> Google will be doing everything to associate your behavior over all boundaries, device, profile, account, job and home as well as private stuff.

This is just one of the many changes that explicitly show that google wants all data aggregated.

You might get by for now by thus technique or that, but eventually Google will close those holes.

</comment><comment><USER54> Personally I drop Chrome few months ago, tired by it's INVOLUTION. I also drop GMail about an year ago for a personal mail (which cost around 20 euros/year) and features standard IMAP and Roundcube instead of the monster WebUI that GMail have since few months.

Also I'm in process to ditch Google contacts on Android (actually sync-ed one- way via Goobook/XML files since vdirsyncer seems unable to sync many contacts) switching to Radicale on home server and DAVDroid on mobile.

For years I say to many ditching GMail&Google in general: you drop a working solution for another equally held by another company with a mission of making money. Now I have to say they were wright, I still drop a company for another but some others are less parasite than Google.

Sorry for my poor English, not my mother-tongue...

</comment><comment><USER55> > This can't be a bug... can it?

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

(Hanlon's razor)

<comment><USER56> I imagine all the spooks and blackhats around the world utter a hearty chortle whenever they see someone cite that on the Internet. All they have to do for plausible deniability is plant a few obvious noob mistakes and, boom: that couldn't possibly be a backdoor, it's just a stupid mistake!

The real question is how Hanlon's Razor applies to itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> You didn't say why this is important to you so it comes off as a bit of a complaint for the sake of it. Are you concerned about your web history going to your Google account? You can turn that off. Don't believe that will really turn it off? Then don't believe that Chrome wasn't already logging your web history without your knowledge. Is it sad that respect for privacy has degraded this far? Absolutely. Is the merging of Google website logins with Google Chrome browser login a significant decrease in privacy? I believe it really isn't at this point.

I've switched over to Firefox and it's quite fast and nice these days.

<comment><USER58> > to you so it comes off as a bit of a complaint for the sake of it.

People like you really rise my blood pressure. No, it's not important to him/her, bad defaults[1] are important for everyone because they are incorrect design. The correct design is not to synchronize anything before obtaining informed consent.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern)

<comment><USER59> _People like you really rise my blood pressure._

May I suggest that this is a very ugly, condescending, dismissive way of talking to anyone. The phrase has no place on a forum like HN.

<comment><USER58> > May I suggest

Perhaps your suggestion could be valid.

Since you pointed that out, what set me off primarily is similar sentiment when parent hinted that op might be arguing in bad faith with "so it comes off as a bit of a complaint for the sake of it". General dismissive attitude of HN to anything privacy related (like this thread getting downvoted) only exacerbates things further.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> ungoogled-chromium is what I use

[https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled- chromium](https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium)

<comment><USER61> This is a great project. Contains many of the patches out there to de-fang a lot of these garbage integrations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I wish I could just have multiple Chrome installs segregated from each other for different purposes.

I used to use Firefox for work and chrome for personal stuff. My new employer uses Google's business apps so it is easiest in Chrome....but that knocks out my two browsers at once system.

Often I'll need something I saved to drive (sample code, doc, something) or bookmarked in my personal account that suddenly was relevant to work.... swapping logins is a pain....

<comment><USER63> You are fundamentally describing Firefox Containers. They are awesome and they work just like that, allowing you to have multiple independent sets of cookies for each context you need.

<comment><USER56> That sounds great! But if Mozilla follows the pattern they have set, they will discontinue that extension, just like they dumped Tab Groups, etc. So why should users invest in using it and building workflows around it, when it's probably just another rug to be ripped out from under them?

<comment><USER21> Fair criticism. This one feature, however, is something they've recently been pushing quite hard. I'd bet on medium-term first party support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I just switched to Brave yesterday for all my consumer surfing. (I still use Chrome for work because Amazon S3's "Open" link has a glitch in Brave.) Been quite happy so far - it's remarkable how clean and snappy the web is when there are no ads.

The advantage over Firefox is that it's still Chromium, so all those websites that are Chrome-only or have rendering glitches in other browsers still work perfectly.

</comment><comment><USER65> This I can't reproduce with Chrome 69 on the Mac. I just logged into Gmail without being logged into Chrome. Or did I misunderstand something here?

</comment><comment><USER66> Ever since it came out I started using Firefox' Containers for that purpose and they work like a charm.

Maybe something similar exists for Chrome?

<comment><USER67> The exact idea behind this unwanted feature in Google Chrome is the opposite idea of containers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Google continues the war against their own users.

</comment><comment><USER69> You are not essentially logging into Chrome, well yes you are but only for local purposes and that's not so bad... the link is only local, it will not be syncing any data without your consent, it used to mean that.. and Google DID do very poorly presenting this version of their browser (proven by other posts here)

</comment><comment><USER70> People have been reporting the same for YouTube in the other direction. Logging off YouTube logs you off Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER71> Thinking about switching and wanting a couple of recent, non-ideological opinions on how Firefox is better than Chrome? [https://fiatjaf.alhur.es/entulho/firefox-vs- chrome.txt](https://fiatjaf.alhur.es/entulho/firefox-vs-chrome.txt)

</comment><comment><USER72> If you're on v68 and want to stop Chrome from upgrading add this on /etc/hosts: 0.0.0.0 tools.google.com

H/T: [https://stackoverflow.com/a/36183372/728287](https://stackoverflow.com/a/36183372/728287)

</comment><comment><USER73> So... I just updated Chrome and restarted it. I'm signed in to my gmail and gsuite accounts. Other than my gmail interface being annoyingly updated without asking me, I'm not being automatically signed into Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER74> Over the past 2 years I've slowly migrated myself away from Google. I do not use a Google account regularly anymore. I have private email, with my own domain. I use an iPhone. I use Firefox for browsing.

</comment><comment><USER75> I run a dedicated site-specific browser instance of Chrome for Gmail. That way I don't need to stay logged into Google for any browsing I do in my main instance of Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER76> Can you break this via the incognito mode? I have two gmail accounts one for work and one private, this is generally how I keep both open. Is this still going to be possible?

</comment><comment><USER77> Maybe create a profile just for Gmail and other Google stuff? (I do this for Facebook.)

Or multiple profiles if you also have a work account.

For your main profile, don't log into Google at all.

</comment><comment><USER78> Hey, can't log me into Chrome if I don't have it ;)

Unless they also forced _download and installation_ of Chrome. But nobody would tolerate that, right?

</comment><comment><USER79> The part when you are logged out from GMail when you log out from Chrome might be a bug. Logging into Chrome when logging into GMail? Don't think so.

</comment><comment><USER80> I can confirm on Windows, exactly the same behavior. I guess, it's time to start using Chrome account, never needed it, but whatever.

</comment><comment><USER81> I've been using Gmail, etc in Mailplane for quite a while.

I do note that Gmail sign-in on my iPhone appears to have logged me into it on the YouTube app

</comment><comment><USER82> You could use Missive to avoid this. It'd let you keep using your gmail account without having to ever log in to gmail in Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER83> I don't use Chrome or Chromium for years now. It's bloated, slow and eat a lot of precious CPU and memory resources.

</comment><comment><USER84> Not just Gmail, but I got logged out from other websites as well! [chrome 69, linux, ubuntu 16.04]

</comment><comment><USER37> So... why is this a problem? If I sign into my Google account, I already get signed into Maps, Drive, YouTube, Gmail, Calendar, etc. Why shouldn't Chrome be part of that list?

I can perhaps understand there being some scenarios where this might not be desirable (depending on exactly how it's implemented), but for 99% of users this is a good thing, isn't it?

</comment><comment><USER85> This happened to me yesterday on Windows too, to add another datapoint to your sample set.

</comment><comment><USER86> Will it force me to login to Chrome even if I've never created a Chrome account?

<comment><USER87> Your google account _is_ your Chrome account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> I noticed similar on Android Chrome. I can't log out of my email in the browser

</comment><comment><USER89> You can switch 'people' to have one browser for each account you want.

</comment><comment><USER90> It's time to start replacing Google in your life.

Chrome -> Firefox

Search -> DuckDuckGo

Gmail -> ProtonMail (not strictly, but my recommendation)

Docs -> OnlyOffice

YouTube -> Use NewPipe if you have Android. There's BitChute but it has a lot of right-wing crap.

Play Store -> F-Droid (if using Android)

Google Drive -> Dropbox

Google Maps -> HERE WeGo, or Mapquest

Google News -> Yahoo! News

<comment><USER91> > YouTube

I've been using YouTube via RSS feeds for a while. Requires no logins or anything to youtube, and I can still get the content only available there like Sixty Symbols and Numberphile. It's great!

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> Horrible. Seems to not work with Google Inbox though.

</comment><comment><USER93> It did not automatically login here.

</comment><comment><USER94> Google is getting really pushy about logging in. Can you read any Google Doc file now without being logged in?

</comment><comment><USER95> Don't be evil?

</comment><comment><USER96> Why on earth are you using chrome if you cared about that kind of stuff so much?

No,it isn't a bug. It has always been that on android,using chrome browser or the youtube app meant that whatever google account was used in play store is also used to log you into google both on on chrome,yt,maps,etc...

They just brought that feature to desktop,I suppose now you'll be logged into whatever google account last used?

This includes payment info you inputted on the play store or anywhere else.

What exactly is your concern,I can't imagine you'd expect boundaries and privacy to be a thing google would respect with any of their products. They say "don't be evil" but they're pretty wishy-washy and flexible as to what they consider evil. I'd equate complaining about privacy and boundaries with google and fb to complaining about the rude staff and unpleasant patrons in prison.

<comment><USER97> A lot of people use chrome because it has the best security according to a lot of experts, including here on HN. It's reasonable to complain about a drift in functionality that spans the web to native gap in my opinion.

<comment><USER98> Really? Perhaps 10 years ago, but Chrome is pretty ok when it comes to security. This eval that is Google's top result in search [0] has them tied for 6 out of 9 (5.5) and Chromium is better for security.

[0] [https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/best-browsers-for- privacy/](https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/best-browsers-for-privacy/)

<comment><USER99> From that link you posted...

> Security: Google has always been known as a leader for browser security, and > for good reason... All said, Google's leading position in browser security > is undisputed. 5/5

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> I wonder how does this exactly work technically. I am still working on the essay/overview BTW.

</comment><comment> swingline-747 Does this apply to Chromium as well?

</comment><comment><USER101> Why is this a problem ?

<comment><USER31> Now Google can (potentially) associate your browsing history with your identity, whereas before, any read of one's history would be anonymous.

<comment><USER102> Everything you do in chrome is called back to google servers. Even if you block cookies you can look at the network tab in dev tools and see it calling back; also it sends the links you click on to a malware check service (you know, safe browsing) that server tracks everything you click on: no cookies needed; there are also endpoints for transmitting your urls for 'quality of service' (to optimize bandwidth), that tracks, and then all the performance data called bakc to the google servers could potentially have your data steganographically included in that data

There are many things that chrome is doing that are dubious, quasi legal

one thing they could be doing is a kind of reverse beacon or barium meal beacon where they generate a unique code and steganographically insert that as an overlay into images...you won't see the difference when your webpage loads the image, but then some javascript will send that image back to a server, and there you ahve a cross site tracking mechanism. This concept has been used in browser fingerprinting, but now that has evolved with html5 with the canvas tag which generates unique ids and sends that back in order to track your browser everywhere around the internet without needing cookies or websocket sessions or any other newer session mgmt mechanism

<comment><USER103> Note that the Safe Browsing service is also used by Firefox. If you interact with a CA or some other services they may also use it to check that a domain does not have a history of malicious activity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> You do know that Google is first and foremost an advertising company, right?

One should expect this kind of fuckery when using software and services controlled by such an entity.

There are alternatives, use and/or support them.</comment>


Is anything made in the U.S.A. anymore? You'd be surprised - <AUTHOR> http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/20/business/wbmake.php <comment><USER2> I'd be quite interested in studies of public perception related to this. (For instance, what percentage of US congressmen think that China manufactures more than the US? According to the average voter, what percentage of US consumer goods are imported?)</comment>


Ask HN: What are extremely innovative marketplace ideas? - <AUTHOR>

Hello guys,
I am looking for ideas for marketplaces which are extremely innovative/thrilling/bizarre...
I really appreciate your answer! <comment><USER2> Obligatory reference: Fiverr! I just love that place. It is like going through a 99c store with all kind of affordable oddities.

<comment><USER3> It's incredible the things you can get done for $5. Just recently I had a professional quality commercial voice-over done. And I had my logo digitized for a very specific embroidery machine. I don't know how they can afford to spend the time doing such things.

<comment><USER2> There is lots of potential there. I wish they had some API so one could create a shopping front and get everything handled by pre-screened fiverr providers. But I guess there are already many doing similar arbitrage businesses via virtual assistants that just coordinate fiverr orders all day long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A cool marketplace is Uber in a way.

A lot of service industries could be used in a marketplace scenario similar to Uber.

<comment><AUTHOR> do you have a link? Because I cannot find it ;(

<comment><USER2> how about [https://www.uber.com/](https://www.uber.com/)</comment></comment></comment>


Why scooter startups are important and strategic to the future of transportation - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchen.co/scooter-platform-play/ <comment><USER2> an incredible way to force you to focus. need to dedicate five minutes to breaking through that block here you go!</comment>


Pirate Bay Censorship Backfires as New Proxies Bloom  - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-censorship-backfires-as-new-proxies-bloom-121222/

<comment><USER2> I may well have my history wrong, but this reminds me of that situation in Vietnam when solders were made to take a hill, then withdrew only for the hill to be retaken. Lots of people got hurt and nothing was gained.

<comment><USER3> Just curious, but what's the rationale behind the withdraws?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pirate Bay uses cloud servers hidden behind a proxy and a load balancer. The cloud servers are encrypted both in disk image and TCP traffic. The load balancer and the proxy are stateless machines that have no HDD. They keep no traces.

Add these front-end proxies hosted in various permitting jurisdictions and it's almost impossible to track or pull down. Good job of providing a technological-legal fix to a legal attack!

</comment><comment><USER5> When these hand held computing devices become part of our minds, the ability to do what we please with our minds will be constantly under attack. There will be one school of thought, where all general purpose processing should be monitored by a central government agency, and another school of thought that what happens in my mind is strictly my business only. If you want to come search my mind, you'll have to get a warrant and probable cause.

We must fight for the ability to do anything we want on our computers, and to keep out anyone we don't like on our computers, or else we will wake up as slaves one day to a magnificent society.

Maybe it would be better if all humans were to become recruited as a hive of unthinking automations, like the borg, where we submit our will to others, and human potential to explore the universe increases.

I support the pirate bay because they support my personal freedom to think whatever I want to on my devices. If I am to be recruited as a component of a collective, that should be my choice, not the default only-choice.

<comment><USER4> > Maybe it would be better if all humans were to become recruited as a hive of > unthinking automations, like the borg, where we submit our will to others, > and human potential to explore the universe increases.

If you're part of a collective mind you are part of something much larger than yourself, kind of like a voice in a forum, but a much larger and better integrated forum. How great is a neuron in comparison to the brain? I don't think the neuron relinquishes its will to the collective, but rather, only inside the collective does it really shine.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What disclosures am I owed when a startup I have equity in is sold? - <AUTHOR> A startup I worked at and own equity in was recently sold. All we received was a short email outlining the sale in general terms, and a 280G form to sign. I understand the 280G form relates to a parachute payment to the CEO.
Relevant seeming bits of the email:
"The transaction with {the buyer} was approved unanimously by {my former company}'s board of directors and by more than a majority of each class and series of {my former company}'s stock."
"The available proceeds from the sale of {my former company}'s assets are insufficient to cover the amounts of the liquidation preferences payable to the preferred stockholders.  As such, no distributions will be made to the holders of common stock at this time."
What does the company owe me and other common share holders as part of being sold (both in terms of information and assets)? I understand that the sale was more or less a fire sale, so I'm not expecting to get anything. The money I put into it is not enough to warrant seeking counsel or anything, but I'm pretty irritated at the vague communication I've received. <comment><USER2> They don't owe you anything. I received a similar letter from a startup I was involved in many years ago. Preferred shareholders are first in line. Sounds like there wasn't enough to even pay them off. Common shareholders get the left over scraps, and there aren't any... You're SOL.</comment>