All I can read from that title is double-speak about how it's your responsibility to opt out, your problem if you don't.

Even better, knowing someone with one of these trucks - every time it does a software update (which it does over the air, and which apparently cannot be disabled), it re-enables a bunch of shit and forces you to opt-out again.

Super creepy.

Can confirm. Reverts opt-outs. Resets some settings. Generally a worse experience with each update. Why would I want to know how fast my truck is charging at a supercharger? Thats no longer an option.

Zero trust is more like you need strong authentication like FIDO on the webapp even if it's behind the VPN, not that you get rid of defense in depth.

What a load of shit. Samsung TV always listening if you enable listening, why would they do this? /s

How dare they run a classifier locally on the TV, they should upload it uncut to Czechia like Amazon did with their ring cameras!

the point is the setting does nothing, now go back to your claude session

I don't think that was even asserted, much less proven. The mic usage is almost certainly for the built in voice assistant. The dog and baby detection is for publicly announced features: https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-celebrates-debut-samsung...

Does Lockdown block all PDFs?

No, it doesn't.

Everything associated with PHP is terrible. The fractal of bad design isn't limited to just the programming language. It's time to dump PHP.

Nah, you just repeated something that to you was a rumor.

"out of proportion to SSL/TLS’s place in our business" is an insane comparison. They are saying they care so little about SSL/TLS to begin with that it's not fair.

It would be like me practicing surgery 1 hour a week and saying "well surgery only has a very small place in my 80-hour work week" in response to flagrant failure of medical care.

"We are bad at this job, but we don't do it often so don't think we are bad at other jobs".

Yeah, the proportion if anything is too small. This is the sort of company that should not be doing anything related to security.

You're reading it the wrong way, I think. Their certificate business is so small, 1% of revenue, that it's not worth trying to rescue it after the amount of attention it has been getting. It simply wouldn't be profitable.

The more telling thing to me is that they explain that THEIR core business is unaffected, but they don't explain that they fucked up so badly that everyone else had to step in and actively update their trust chains to work around eMudhra to avoid putting every single internet user at risk.

Quite frankly I doubt they understand how massively they've screwed up, or they are trying to hide it to avoid absorbing any blame for the fallout.

As I remember it, Chrome was way faster than Firefox, but I was in high school and probably stupid. Firefox wouldn't catch up to Chrome until Quantum, which was amazing when it first dropped, but now Firefox is slow again.

No, Chrome was way faster than Firefox. You were not wrong. It grew right alongside HTML5, and Chrome put a lot of effort into V8. Firefox was definitely better than IE or Safari, but Chrome could do everything that Firefox did without the memory usage that Firefox had. It's funny how memory usage is now abysmal on Chrome, too.

> Firefox is slow again

Currently I am feeling this too but only for one site, GitHub. Which is where is spend most time during the day...

Quite sad, I don't know if it's GitHub's fault or not but Firefox needs to figure out what's going wrong here soon or people like me may be literally forced to Chromium.

I've tried Chrome too on that wave of hype, including on some pretty slow machines. Like the Eee PC, and for a few months, not few hours btw. It wasn't perceptibly faster than Firefox, at it had its own slowdowns, just a bit differently. For example as I remember, Chrome often rendered a page visibly faster than FF, but it was actually unusable and frozen static "image" of sorts for a few brief moments, and only then it become active. FF had a slower time rendering, but at all times it was not frozen statically, just some elements were loading. Things like that. In the end, I returned to FF not because Google had some bad rep back then, but purely because Firefox was better and more pleasant to use. I'm still baffled how that "FF - slow!" campaign worked out eventually.

Yes, they were both much of a muchness when taken as a whole, though some people definitely did find that one or the other was notably faster for their typical workloads.

But Chrome won the vast bulk of its market share not because it was technically better in every way, but because they spent much more on marketing at the exact time IE entered terminal decline.

Humiliation ritual