would be good to make the discovery be a module that can be replaced or used as a redundant plugin. That way the user can use DHT, WebTorrent, CloudFlare or whatever.
The library they are using does this. I wrote my own separate library that uses Cloudflare because it uses a bespoke protocol that takes advantage of some WebRTC hacks (SDP munging, DTLS certificate reuse, peer reflexive candidates, etc) to minimize I/O to R2 and hence reduce costs on Cloudflare.
>> Almost none of the things linked there are run by serious isps that are responsible for other peoples' mail in quantities of tens of thousands of inboxes or more.
If you look at Haraka in the list, it is used by craigslist to deliver a lot emails every day, they switched to it from postfix to save cost.
I know Haraka is smtp only, however by using ZoneMTA like what wildduck is using, it will be a complete email solution.
not to mention Russians has great mastery of EMF warfare pretty well. Pretty sure it won't take much to hack or disable these drones. Won't trust any of these kind of tech for war fare too much.
The real question is every human being have ability to have create these kind of bomb, I can see civilisation can be wiped out in an instance at our current level of mental/psychological/spiritual maturity.
I think when people compare Matrix/Element a bit differently than all others. It is federated chat client (like email), that along is something worth considering for people who wants to keep their message and communication channel open. All the other chat program, such as What's App, Signal, Wire all belong in the same universe much like AOL back then. Signal actually discourage others from running their own servers. Matrix allows us to have our own domain and address, which is forever ours. If we don't like the provider that is running our server, we can just start our own (just like email). For that along I would rather support a version of Element.io/Matrix.org than another other programs.
* You don't say where you are located *
I also would like to know the location. thepoet, would be good if you start commenting on this thread as it is on the front page of HN.
And Apple provides iCloud+ members with a VPN which does not tie browsing history to users by separating ingress and egress traffic and using encrypted forwarding (similar to onion routing): https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iCloud_Private_Relay_Over...
iCloud backup is not end to end encrypted. iCloud sync of Safari History, Tab Groups, and iCloud Tabs is. The data collection the app page mentioned sounds like a 3rd thing. Or even E2EE is considered data collection for App Store purposes.
I visit my HN comments page almost daily. There’s no way this can be anonymized away from me as the url contains my userid and can be linked back to me.
Even anonymized, data can be used in negative ways against me (eg, trying to alter my purchase behavior through ads).
I agree with you. In the present time, even as a profit grubbing corporation, Apple does a decent job privacy and security. This might change in the future, but I hope not.
I now use ProtonMail as my backup email even though I am a long term paying customer. This is obviously a personal decision, but I consider Apple’s email service to be good enough in terms of privacy and usability. Also, every company I have worked for in the last decade uses Google Workplace and I find having work material in Google and my stuff in Apple’s ecosystem leads to a good separation of work vs. my life.
Because brave/firefox is better, and its not based on the new IE engine(WebKIT) which is incompatible with anything that improves user experience to the point it competes with Mobile apps.
Yes its better than chrome, but its worse than anything which claims good privacy.
>>On the Intel front, Apple saw how underperforming, short lasting battery and hot the 12” MacBook was.
Then they saw how performant, long battery lasting and cool their iPad (ARM chip) was.
This became an easy decision for Apple to ditch Intel when they saw how much better their own iPad Pro was relative to the 12” Intel MacBook.
For those who have being using Mac since the PowerPC days all have used this argument against X86 chips. As you all know, Apple actually had to switched from RISC chips to Intel X86 chips, before they switched back to ISAs chips now. Just saying performance is not the main reason to switch chip sets.
IBM's PowerPC chips were high performance workstation chips, which means you're going to get performance and heat. In a desktop computer, you can add robust cooling, in an ultra-portable laptop, you cannot.
Apple abandoned PPC after it became obvious that laptops were going to become more popular than desktops, and the G5 cheese grater Mac Pro required liquid cooling for the dual CPU chip versions.
Apple moved from Intel to ARM for the exact same reason. Intel no longer cares about pursuing high performance with a low power draw. They have returned to the Pentium 4 strategy of performance via clock speed and power increases.
I believe the specific reason (as far as Apple disclosed) was that lower performance / higher efficiency PowerPC CPUs just weren't on IBM's roadmap and whatever quantity of CPUs Apple was buying and/or willing to commit to buying wasn't enough for IBM to consider it. Intel was focusing on power efficiency after the whole Netburst disaster.
Have they really gone back to the pentium 4 strategy or are they behind in process node tech and can only compete with AMD’s performance by pumping power into their cpus? I think Intel’s top priority right now is to catch up to Tsmc’s node tech to have as close to performance per watt (or beyond) parity as they can against AMD (and Apple)
Stop feeding into hyperbole. The 13900k is for maybe 5% of the market, and the non k will give crazy enough performance for most buyers (if they even exist at this point). Giving the 13900 a high heat mode is just for the chance to keep up/beat AMD for bragging rights.
Intel isn’t relying on an architecture thats about to run them into a wall like the Pentium 4’s architecture was about to, what keeping them is second is being behind on their process, and beyond that, execution.
Sorry, but Intel is pretty obviously chasing performance via higher and higher clock speeds and ridiculously high power draws just like they did previously with their Pentium 4 strategy.
You can argue that it's not what they "want" to be doing, but it's certainly what they are doing.
