No engagement rings, by our values those are kinda corny. Wedding rings we got from a jewelry factory that supplies much of the country, which happens to be local to where we lived at the time. Got them at factory price. Not quite $12, but not much higher. :)

I am emotionally invested in Sandy.

I am in mad love with this Darmok-ass comment.

Ah, that Techlicious link is a great find, thanks. It does lay out clearly what the theoretical concern is. That’s still a far cry from the “Google will start fingerprintint you” scenario that seems to have people up in arms.

Thanks for digging out this link, I really appreciate it.

Thanks – that’s an announcement about policy updates. I already read it and it says nothing about fingerprinting. The only change to underlying technologies it mentions is the use of e.g. trusted execution environments (the doc for which, per a further link, is in fact on github). Those seem to claim that they let announcers run ad campaigns through Google ads while keeping their campaign data provably locked away from Google. So, basically, all these links are about purported “privacy-enhancing” techs, and you’d be forgiven for taking that with an enormous grain of salt, but either way, nothing in there about fingerprinting.

The Guardian article basically paraphrases the Tuta one – or it’s the other way around, maybe – but does also not provide actual sources.

I just want a source on what fingerprinting Tuta is claiming Google will start using. I feel like the details of the purported fingerprinting techniques should be front and center to this discussion and I’m frustrated that the article entirely fails to provide that info.

I’m aware of fingerprinting techniques, thank you. The article is claiming that Google will start using some of those and I’m looking for the source for that claim, hopefully with specifics about which techniques are involved. Confusingly, the article does not appear to provide such a source.

You’d THINK the article would link to a source about the fingerprinting in question instead of 90% filler slop and ads for their own service… Anyone got a link?

Chat, I don’t feel this guy gets it.

(❤️)

(By which I mean, of course you could, same as you could replace any pronoun with one or several nouns, that being the entire deal with pro-nouns. We could but pronouns save us from having to do that.)

Or the Dodgy. I’m partial to that one.

My fav neopronoun by far:

Chat.

That, now, is indeed a genuine issue. Trump has stated that his end game is annexation, and experience has shown that when he sounds like he’s got a bee in his bonnet about something, however bonkers, he’s actually serious about it. So I’m not seeing him stop the aggression on Canada.

which I’m sure we did somehow

Trudeau sold him measures that Canada had already voted on. See this post from the end of last year. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/12/the-government-of-canadas-border-plan-significant-investments-to-strengthen-border-security-and-our-immigration-system.html

Trudeau “caved” by giving Trump essentially zilch, apparently assuming – perhaps not incorrectly – that Trump would be that easily swindled.

Nope? They (Colombia) got exactly what they wanted as far as In understand. Trump caved, the flights will have to follow the conditions dictated by Colombia. It’s telling that the press is selling this as a Trump win.

It… depends. There is some great tooling for Python – this was less true only a few years ago, mind you – but the landscape is very much in flux, and usage of the modern stuff is not yet widespread. And a lot of the legacy stuff has a whole host of pitfalls.

Things are broadly progressing in the right direction, and I’d say I’m cautiously optimistic, although if you have to deal with anything related to conda then for the time being: good luck, and sorry.

I mean, he’s been implementing hard right policies all along, so…

She’s pretty and deserves neck scritches. :) Also needs to see a farrier.

Was this a mistake?

Clarifying: are you asking if downloading the Proton Mail app through the Google Play Store gives Google access to your Proton account? If so, the answer is no.

They didn’t drop the don’t be evil thing. It’s still right there in the code of conduct where it always was, they just moved it to the conclusion of the document so it’s the last thing that remains with you. See for yourself: https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/

The supposed removal is a perfect example of the outrage-bait headlines I’m discussing in another comment.

It’s not the company it once was, but there are also a lot of outrage-bait headlines about it that don’t hold up well to scrutiny.

For instance, there have been a lot of Lemmy posts about Chrome supposedly removing the APIs used by adblockers. I figured I’d validate that on my own by switching to the version of uBlock that is based on the new API. Well… As it turns out, it works fine. It’s also faster.

Mind you, figuring out the actual facts behind each post gets exhausting, and people just shutting down and avoiding the problem space entirely makes some sort of sense. That, and it is healthy for an ecosystem to have alternatives, so I’d keep encouraging usage of Firefox and such if only on that basis alone.

This is actually an excellent question.

And for all the discussions on the topic in the last 24h, the answer is: until a postmortem is published, we don’t actually know.

There are a lot of possible explanations for the observed events. Of course, one simple and very easy to believe explanation would be that the software quality processes and reliability engineering at CrowdStrike are simply below industry standards – if we’re going to be speculating for entertainment purposes, you can in fact imagine them to be as comically bad as you please, no one can stop you.

But as a general rule of thumb, I’d be leery of simple and easy to believe explanations. Of all the (non-CrowdStrike!) headline-making Internet infrastructure outages I’ve been personally privy to, and that were speculated about on such places as Reddit or Lemmy, not one of the commenter speculations came close to the actual, and often fantastically complex chain of events involved in the outage. (Which, for mysterious reasons, did not seem to keep the commenters from speaking with unwavering confidence.)

Regarding testing: testing buys you a certain necessary degree of confidence in the robustness of the software. But this degree of confidence will never be 100%, because in all sufficiently complex systems there will be unknown unknowns. Even if your test coverage is 100% – every single instruction of the code is exercised by at least one test – you can’t be certain that every test accurately models the production environments that the software will be encountering. Furthermore, even exercising every single instruction is not sufficient protection on its own: the code might for instance fail in rare circumstances not covered by the test’s inputs.

For these reasons, one common best practice is to assume that the software will sooner or later ship with an undetected fault, and to therefore only deploy updates – both of software and of configuration data – in a staggered manner. The process looks something like this: a small subset of endpoints are selected for the update, the update is left to run in these endpoints for a certain amount of time, and the selected endpoints’ metrics are then assessed for unexpected behavior. Then you repeat this process for a larger subset of endpoints, and so on until the update has been deployed globally. The early subsets are sometimes called “canary”, as in the expression “canary in a coal mine”.

Why such a staggered deployment did not appear to occur in the CrowdStrike outage is the unanswered question I’m most curious about. But, to give you an idea of the sort of stuff that may happen in general, here is a selection of plausible scenarios, some of which have been known to occur in the wild in some shape or form:

• The update is considered low-risk (for instance, it’s a minor configuration change without any code change) and there’s an imperious reason to expedite the deployment, for instance if it addresses a zero-day vulnerability under active exploitation by adversaries.
• The update activates a feature that an important customer wants now, the customer phoned a VP to express such, and the VP then asks the engineers, arbitrarily loudly, to expedite the deployment.
• The staggered deployment did in fact occur, but the issue takes the form of what is colloquially called a time bomb, where it is only triggered later on by a change in the state of production environments, such as, typically, the passage of time. Time bomb issues are the nightmare of reliability engineers, and difficult to defend against. They are also, thankfully, fairly rare.
• A chain of events resulting in a misconfiguration where all the endpoints, instead of only those selected as canaries, pull the update.
• Reliabilty engineering not being up to industry standards.

Of course, not all of the above fit the currently known (or, really, believed-known) details of the CrowdStrike outage. It is, in fact, unlikely that the chain of events that resulted in the CrowdStrike outage will be found in a random comment on Reddit or Lemmy. But hopefully this sheds a small amount of light on your excellent question.