Hey buddy, you’d better be careful what you post on a public forum. Sooner or later somebody’s gonna ask their own personal LLM to write a comprehensive test suite for how you respond to comments and situations, move the mouse cursor upwards and to the left to click a button there, and recreate you as legally their property now. If I were you I’d gimme money gimme moneyyyyyy before my big LLM here teaches you a lesson the hard way.
Please rip me off if you can! I would be thrilled. I open source 100% of my work and if people plagiarize it and the net result is my work and ideas positively impacted more people, then that is an outcome I am proud of.
Requiring users to independently remember small decisions from months ago is bad UI. The error message should’ve been correct, and maybe the OS should be surfacing a log or something.
This under the top-level comment stating they're switching to linux? Linux behaves the exact same. If you edit a config file, expect the configuration to be set accordingly.
Is this a mac user thing? "Apple should know better than to trust the configuration the users try to set" lol
I’m honestly having a hard time understanding you through all the tribalism.
Asking who to blame is simplistic and unproductive, the right question is what to do. As a user, obviously that involves things like updating your understanding of the network stack and the many different places config is stored. I was commenting from a UI designer’s perspective, because I am one and I find that more interesting.
I think Linux for consumers has been historically quite bad at this, and Apple has at least recently also been bad at it. “You’re holding it wrong” is the same mistake.
> Requiring users to independently remember small decisions from months ago is bad UI. The error message should’ve been correct, and maybe the OS should be surfacing a log or something.
What was Firefox's error message?
macOS does have local network access logging:
log show --predicate 'subsystem == "com.apple.networkextension"
OR eventMessage CONTAINS[c] "local network"' --info --last 1h
But what macOS doesn't have is an API for an application to query whether it has 'local network' access or not. If it did, Firefox could report a proper error message.
Safari of course get 'local network' access automatically, with no permission asked of the user. Special treatment for Apple's own apps of course.
While I know this is a situation that may not last, I am grateful for ChromeOS in this regard.
My Chromebook has so few settings. Just the bare minimum of control panels and switches to get things running, and so few preferences to set and tweak and fiddle all day with. It was really the #1 reason I chose Chromebook over a Windows notebook at my last purchase.
I was just so relieved to be done with the endless riding-herd on my system like a Windows or Linux admin. I don't run Apple, no, but I can't imagine it is any less complex. My Android too suffers from so many bewildering settings, and most of those are the per-app tweaks that we simply can't keep up with.
On ChromeOS I can be certain that day by day, week by week, I won't need to drop to a shell, open up preferences, or tweak a bunch of settings just desperately trying to get something else working. And when I set up a new system, there won't be that daunting, arduous setup (albeit ChromeOS settings are not stashed in a Google account yet...)
It is much like my apartment. It pains me to read homeowners going over their endless woes of DIY and self-maintenance, and how much it costs to call in a guy to fix stuff; even my parents do this. A good landlord simply keeps everything working for me. Something breaks, I call it in, it gets fixed and we carry on. And no endless tweaking, installing, landscaping, gardening, fixing stuff around the house.
In my youth I tinkered endlessly with computers. I loved breaking them and repairing them. I learned all the internals and acted as professional sysadmin plenty of times. But in my old age and retirement, I just want a system that works, and that won't screw with me. The "Just Works" trophy has been passed from Apple to ChromeOS.
FYI, a few months ago Firefox finally put local network access behind a per-site permission, so websites can’t port scan you even if Firefox itself has this perm. Chrome has had this forever. There’s also a uBlock Origin filter list to block LAN access, which I think would not prevent top level navigation to it.
I think it was looser on release for those juicy benchmarks, tighter now. On release I wasn’t getting refusals, then a few days ago I asked it whether a generic quote (think “he walked to the store”) broke standard punctuation rules, and it blocked me for breaking rules. I wish I were joking. Rephrasing to not use the keyword “rules” worked.
“Pick all the numbers in the range with exactly the same probability” is a very important property of RNGs. Yes, skipping 16542 would be equally bad.
You can frame it around being “non predictable”, but then you need to define those words. It’s not, for example, a poker game where it’s trying to bluff you, right? It’s also not about just making predictions < 100% reliable and declaring victory. It must specifically make all predictions no better than random guessing, and that entails picking any number in range with equal probability, otherwise predictions like “it will be {hot spot}” or “it won’t be {cold spot}” do better than random chance. In this case, specifically, I can predict with 100% accuracy that the result won’t be 0, and that’s a flaw in its unpredictability. I can also predict a bunch of other things with slightly higher accuracy than random guessing, like that it will be odd or greater than max ÷ 2.
when you unblind a blind signature all the signer knows is that it's a signature they signed at some point, they know nothing (true zero knowledge) about when or where they signed it among all the other signatures.
Yes, and then you have a signed piece of data that others can verify. How does that help you with preventing duplication of signatures?
E-cash depends on the secrecy of the signed data, and immediate redemption with the issuer once it's been spent/accepted. This is a terrible model for physical cash.
> immediate redemption with the issuer once it's been spent/accepted. This is a terrible model for physical cash
not when everything is now online.
also the obvious way such cash would work is that "redemption" is just the new minting of coin. the central authority will mint a new coin by blindly signing your secret after you "destroy" the spent coin by giving them the unblinded signature.
This thread is about printing QR codes on physical cash. GGP explicitly said:
> That's really neat! Seems potentially adaptable to paper currency--a verifiable QR code digital signature of the bill's serial number creates a cryptographically hard obstacle to counterfeiting!
I don't see how any e-cash solutions can help here.
it would depend on the government and the situation. I suspect most don't realize this is possible. a small government can generate immediate demand for their currency doing this.
The original e-cash paper is from 1983. Governments absolutely know this is possible.
It's just much "too private" to get any political traction. At the very least, I suspect an acceptable modern alternative would either have caps on what can be sent/received completely anonymously (e.g. per recipient and timespan) or want non-anonymous recipients (to allow for VAT/sales tax accounting etc.)
reply