It's really not though. It has become 1 click to install a self hosted google photos/drive. We just need people to be more aware of the alternatives

Do people remember Hacker monthly? It was a print magazine of top monthly articles. Great project, unfortunately discontinued in 2016

Both are great options. Easy to self-host. The difference is that luxer has a more modern UI maybe

Using anything on top of wireguard or plain? I heard headscale adds a nice layer

I use plain WireGuard. My use case is very simple: I have a server and a few clients (phone, laptop) I want to connect to the server when I'm away. I don't care to have VPN connectivity between my phone and laptop

There are solutions though

Extensions like Consent-O-Matic offers what we should have had: browser level cookie control

As jon said, it is a frew service. Someone, somehow needs to pay for the service, bwing through something as bad as ads from your photos. We as consumers just need to be more comfortable paying a little to have these services. Immich on a vps is not that much

Don't worry, Google is a trillion dollar company. We've been paying with our privacy, our attention, our psychological health, our economic well-being, and our voice in the democratic process. Even those of us who have de-Googled are paying the price. How much more do we possibly owe them?

That said, I do appreciate that your proposal isn't to pay Google even more though.

That sounds reasonable. I would even go one step further and drop requirements to disclose AI use. I think the person submitting the work should be fully responsible for what they submit and is more than enough. If you have a karma system for contributors, you get a pretty good idea of who does a good job.p

I hear you, but I don't think is a good idea to say that someone who used AI for a patch, did not understand the changes. We can't conflate the two.

If you spent 20 seconds to generate a patch and just hurled over the fence to be reviewed is no worse than spending 3 hours to manually write a fix that fixes 1 thing and break 2 others.

100% of AI use should have to be disclosed in all cases, not just software. A person using an AI is foregoing responsibility from the get go by using an AI to do things that they can't personally do. What would it even mean for them to be responsible if they submit a patch to a project written by an AI as their own work? Such a person submitting a patch they don't understand that is rejected is in exactly the same place as if they had never submitted a patch. They have nothing to lose.

Initially I've also struggled with this, and the mental model I found most useful is that a passkey is used to log in into that account from that device.

If the website doesn't allow you to add multiple passkeys then that's bad ux and that's on them.

I understand the shortcomings of pass keys but I feel the tone of the article is a bit tin foil hat.

Especially this line: "I believe this was done in order to deliberately confuse users and encourage them not to look too closely at the fine text." Don't attribute to malevolence what you can attribute to incompetence

A lot of people have said there are pros and cons to any authentication method. Pass keys have drawbacks but they also for a lot of advantages.

I don't think a good idea to limit yourself to solutions only from your geographical area, but it's also a very ingrained " not from my tribe" human sentiment. It's hard to fight it.