Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | johanyc's commentslogin

> "what if we have a family Computer but each wants to access their private accounts and keep the others from accessing?"

That's what OS level user accounts are for. Tbf

> "what do Ineed do to login from an airport computer?" or "what should do if my phone is stolen?"

Indeed I don't know the answers to these either if I wasn't syncing passkeys in 1password. Honestly we should educate people to use password managers more than any thing. It's also a smaller jump than to passkeys. Passkeys can be more of an advanced convenience feature after they get used to using password managers already.


> I highly suspect Apple and Google maps are auto tracing satellite images.

https://www.justinobeirne.com/google-maps-moat

they have been doing it for years.


Is that true? I find that unlikely. I would believe if normies don't know Alphabet or Bytedance even when they use their products every day. But Meta? You open every app they make it literally says "from Meta" in the splash screen


We should all send them this video when we see a question like that: https://youtu.be/PGVLS6YHDlY?t=42


People just expect browsers to be free. And there's no way that can be more than Google money.


That's because browsers should be free. They are infrastructure, just like bridges. And nobody wants a bridge troll sitting on the single bridge crossing the internet river, demanding money from everyone.


You pay for bridges with tax. Tax funded browser sounds good in theory, but I don't trust the people managing my tax money to run a tech project like Firefox. Most likely it gets handed to the lowest private sector bidder, with the stipulation that any privacy preserving — sorry, I meant criminal hiding — features be removed.


Bridges are not free


No but they are available at very reasonable prices in prime locations.

If anyone's interested I have a very pretty one listed in Brooklyn. See my Google search ad for details. :P


They are also not funded with blood money.


I mean, bridge tolls are absolutely a thing.


My area has roads w/o bridges that have a toll.


If things keep going as they are, my area will soon have a bridge, several bridges, and no roads.

But it will still have tolls.


This is very shortlived


> since social media, because they're really inefficient in finding the customers that actually wants to buy their stuff.

Is it really? I would think targeted ads are way more efficient than traditional non targeted ads. Eg I've never seen menstrual pad (something I would never use) ads online.

> take a look at facebook, they're trying to shove ads up your feed

That's the consumers experience, not advertisers


I misread it as sarcastic. But that's on me. I don't think it's a misleading title after reading the article


It's interesting you gave the perfect example and yet find OPs title awkward.

> "| switched to using a Jeep as my car"

"My server is a phone now" is exactly the same: "I switched to using a phone as my server"

> because, short of a large merger, it's not likely that the same car changed its brand.

I find a server rack becoming a phone that I can carry around and call people equally unlikely. And because of the improbability, it's ruled out of my interpretation.

1. Server becomes phone 2. Phone becomes server

I guess more people find 1 more probable than 2? That's surprising to me and especially on hacker news.


The ambiguity is that a server rack could gain the functionality of a phone, maybe it's about some kind of self hosted Google Voice alternative.


my personal assistant is an AI agent now.

Do you think my personal assistant becomes an AI agent or do you think an AI agent is acting as my personal assistant?


In this case there is enough implicit context to infer the correct meaning, but that is not always the case.

However I still think it is phrased poorly as it does initially seem to imply your personal assistant has become an AI agent, but then I have to use additional knowledge I posses (that people can not become AI agents) to correct the interpretation.

I think a better phrasing would be “I now use an AI agent as a personal assistant”. No confusion there. Your phrase can be understood, just like the article title, but it’s not well-written English IMO.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: