I think the best example is Reddit. They are so amateurish in their ways to try to prevent bots that only makes the site more user hostile. The bots are still thriving.
It's basically impossible to not use gmail. Even if you don't have a gmail account or address yourself, the person you're emailing probably has it, so your messages gets sent to a gmail server and gets scanned by them. What I want to know is whether Google uses the contents to profile YOU.
Is it impractical to never send a message through Google? Probably, depending on the circles you communicate in. But that's not the same thing as saying it's impractical to avoid Google for most of your messages, and certainly not the same as saying you can't avoid GMail for anything.
My main email is not GMail, but I forward it to a GMail account to get free spam filtering, free backup, and free search. I encourage everyone to do the same.
You don't get spam if you use aliases everywhere. The few that actually get spam can be turned off.
Like I recently had to turn off alias for made4men.no. srsly, signing me up for spam and not removing me from the spam list even after i unsubscribed. You can tell it's a swedish shop that just happens to own a Norwegian domain.
I actually had to do the opposite. I have a filter that catches all messages marked as spam and unmarks them as spam. VERY rarely there's a spam message caught in there. Much more often sth super important that just would have landed in spam if not for my genius spam filter.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone reads "it's impossible to avoid gmail, just use gmail", then yeah, gmail prevails.
But it's plain false. YOU can decide against using gmail. I don't use gmail. I sometimes talk with people who use gmail, but more often than not, I don't. Stop being fatalistic.
Buy a domain, then you don’t lose your address if you ever decide to jump to a different provider. I use fastmail currently. But I also keep my own backups.
Get your own domain, then you're free to change provider every 2 months and nobody will realise :-).
Then you can try Migadu, Fastmail, Protonmail, Tuta, ... once you own your address (say [email protected]), people won't ever know what provider you are running behind.
It’s much cheaper, having an unlimited plan for just $10/year, or even less if you choose usage-based pricing. Otherwise I don’t know as I’ve never used Migadu.
Let’s put our pitchforks down and think for a moment.
Do you really think that Netflix has a preference for non-Americans?
On one hand we say they chose Americans to pay less money on the other hand we see this absurd amount of money for a remote job
Why? Because this is not them looking to fill a position but rather trying to get a PERM for an employee that they are already happy with. We don’t even know if it’s H1B or L1
Not saying that the H1B program doesn’t have its problems, but this is not the case of let’s fill this job with non-Americans for less pay
Cognizant was found liable for engaging in ethnic nepotism and benching non-Indian labor disproportionately, so a preference for non-Americans is indeed plausible and dependent on the hiring team.
It would be racist to assume this happens every time Indian managers make hiring decisions, but I've been at multiple companies that had to put policies in place to distribute hiring decisions amongst committees instead of allowing hiring managers to have the final say specifically because certain managers would only hire from their home regions and caste within that region. It seems like a somewhat widespread problem. I have also seen this happen with Chinese hiring managers, and I'm sure it happens with US-born hiring managers as well, but that's somewhat harder to prove as being in the US a US-based candidate pool is the default.
Yes, and the user can explicitly grant access to the agent users using filesystem ACLs. Too many agents with the same permissions? Make a group, give permissions to the group, and add your agents to the group.
Of course, as a user, you need some way to easily modify ACLs to do this, but that’s just a front end concern on top of a solid security model that every OS supports.
Filesystem ACLs do not cover as many use cases as TCC or similar APIs. Suppose you want to give an agent access to only some of your messages stored in one SQLite database. ACL cannot restrict access to particular messages. Same goes to let an agent access your screen, even on linux where basically everything is a file, file based permission would not be enough. What if you want to share only a window for instance?
This is what dedicated higher-level APIs (like ScreenCaptureKit on mac or XDG portals on linux) are made for.
Yes, and these higher-level APIs can (should?) be built on the Unix permissions model.
That is, a messaging app could expose separate conversations as separate files or directories in a virtual file system. File system permissions could then dictate which users can access a conversation.
A screen recording virtual file system can expose each window as a separate file. File system permissions would then dictate which users can enumerate all windows (permissions on the directory) and which users can see specific windows (permissions on the files).
If you take “everything is a file” far enough, it follows logically that controlling access to files lets you control access to anything.
reply