skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A lot of performance degradations are driven by external factors; increase in the prevalence of JavaScript, a larger variety of web features, higher resolution images, higher resolution video, new video codecs, new image formats, advertising etc. Some degradations are driven by fundamental physical things, for example batteries and storage devices have physical degradation. So you have to be careful how you define things.
Nor is greater electricity consumption strictly a downside. Using more responsibly sourced electricity could be considered a good thing if it offsets charcoal sourced from a rainforest.

Dying 30 years earlier certainly can reduce your lifetime energy consumption.
"It never ceases to amaze me how citizens of the USA place the vast majority of sympathy to their beloved “troops” and barely any on those who actually get invaded."

Yes - but don't confuse average people in the street with the ra-ra'ing media. Especially in war situations, it is the media's job to propagandise the populace, and ensure that 'the people' are behind whatever it is they are doing. Dissenting opinions will not get any air.
Except you cannot. If you are aware of a vulnerability that triggers the destruction of user's data from the browser just visiting a website, abusing it would be illegal.
Google is an advertising network, they don't need to sell the IP to make money.

It's on the original website to prove that they only use your data for what you asked them to, if you want to do anything else, you need to request informed consent.
Using hosted Google fonts is not needed to run the website (as you can also easily embed them without having the user touch Google). And Google will not say they won't do anything with that data, as they would be lying since that's the whole reason google fonts and other free webdev resources by Google exists: to gather as much data about the user it can.
I can confirm, it must be the worst possible one (but to be honest it is not like Amazon's one is much better).

Of course not what a search should do, but I find the aliexpress search results a good source for fun and learning, through their "random" results I discovered many things I didn't know existed.
The point is that if you go by the logic of this court decision, you need a consent also for js libraries, images, etc. and their primary purpose isn't to gather data. So, to get rid of all notices, you would have to host absolutely everything yourself.
I think you confuse user, the Human, and user, the Programming Idiom.

User, the Human, is not going to be asked weather or not the browser should open every one of the possibly hundreds of references in a web page!!

Now, user, the Programming Idiom, might be configured, programed, etc.. to behave differently, but the reality is that is that's not how the modern web works. If the browser is not configured to behave the way it comes from the box by Google, Microsoft or Apple, most pages will not work correctly.

So I think your configuration/technical argument is purely theoretical. The court cannot expect the average user to understand do any of that.
>not to send users' personal data to third parties

>receive their users' informed consent to such sending BEFORE that sending occurs.

Neither of these are what's actually happening in this case. According to this court's decision, the responsibility of the website owner is not to send instructions to the user's machine that might expose their personal data to third parties after the user's machine follows these instructions, OR receive informed consent before such instructions are sent. I'm not saying the GDPR doesn't apply here, but at least it's clearly a different situation.
Is there a way to pass hooks with a repo, or do you have to give people instructions about how to install them and hope they do it?
Easier said than done because of the attack surface, but I do think the industry will respond given Androids are the most widely-deployed, always-connected, computers in use out there.

I don't think just securing the hardware is enough (though, even that isn't fully done), the software itself remains hard to tame. Add to the fact that folks (including attackers) can "install" arbitrary things on their Androids, the problem gets only worse.

Then, there's the social and legislative aspects as well. For example, no one can raid your home without a search warrant, that's illegal. Similar thing needs to exist in the digital space. This at least thwarts illegal spyware, if not the law enforcement themselves from snooping about people's digital lives.
If you’re selling dashboarding, you need to show that dashboarding really quickly. I looked at the site, skipped through the video and saw nothing. I did see something on the docs site, but I was lost at that point.

You are competing with https://grafana.com/, https://www.metabase.com/, https://superset.apache.org/, etc.
Most people setting up mailservers don’t consider a catch-all forwarding to /dev/null a valid inbox. And no sane mailserver software forwards to /dev/null by default if you don’t explicitly tell it what to do when it receives email it isn’t supposed to receive.

A “valid” address locking up funds sent to it without recourse is /dev/null.
Your post basically amounts to blaming victims of malware and spyware.

"Sure your honor, the victim died by carbon monoxide asphyxiation, but it was his choice to inhale the gas, even though it smells the same as normal air"
Afaik bank transactions are also non-reversible. I don't think that is the main issue, although certainly it is a problem.

If it bothers you, you could probably also go through some service that insures your transactions and gives you a degree of reversibility.
The copyright holders can already sue for GPL violations (and some do), so if corporate lawyers are fine with the GPL now and companies are complying now, they should be fine after the case is won. The problem will come for companies like Vizio who aren't complying.
Yeah, I guess this stands. But HTML is not executable. It has to be parsed, like words in a book, not chemicals in a tube. Who is liable, the person who creates the poison, or the book (encyclopedia) which describes the process (and therefore the person who wrote it/distributes it)?

Again, I'm not saying what is right and wrong, but I think this issue is fundamentally much, much more complex than the court may have thought, and more importantly, may have repercussions on almost every website out there.
It's a possibility if your name is Vitalik Buterin
There's libraries to work with BigInt without "runtime support". Arguably Symbols and Generators cannot get there 100% of their features without runtime support, but for the vast majority of usecases out there (Symbols as a unique keys, generators as a stream of data) there are many ways of doing that with JS without the need of these constructs that are just as clean. For instance, Symbols solve such a very edge case (key collision) that IMHO it's def not worth creating a whole new abstraction for it.

> they aren't often used directly in application code

The problem for me with this is that abstractions leak, and suddenly you are wondering why you cannot add two simple numbers or why there's a 3rd level of hidden properties in objects.
I used Preact+HTM for the same reason. The latter uses tagged templates which are well supported in browsers now, instead of JSX which would have required a compiler of some kind. Do have a look at the frontend.js mentioned in the article.
But Id be living in Germany and not where I want to live.

I hate these numerical comparison between countries. Don’t I already know most of these facts? Aren't they really comparisons at the margins (rare event vs. rarer event)?

How about other considerations like some people like to live in a country where you can easily own a gun, homeschool your kid, or say whatever you want without fearing for your liberty (only your job)?

Germans would rather not have these things, and thats cool, for them.
To follow down the difference here I think that the browser is much more aware of what it is doing than compiled code. It know what this is a stylesheet or a font, it knows it is coming from a different origin and more. Technically the browser is very capable of blocking all third party resources (if you assume that party == domain).

With compiled code stopping it from executing one particular instruction or feature is much harder.

Basically I think the declarative is a significant difference.

Of course I don't think the law thinks that. Otherwise we would have implemented technical measures for limiting cookies such a permissions (with legal backing) rather than these legal-only ones which are abused more often than implemented as they are supposed to be.
Capture Traffic with eBPF – Webinar 10 Feb 9AM PST
Sometimes people are a bit depressed because their life situation is a bit depressing. It can be better to fix the situation.
Java style formatting removes the "bracket on its own line" problem, so I'm not sure how this new indentation style adds anything of value really.
Using a third party is not illegal in itself.
But you need an agreement with the third party as to how they will store/process any user data they collect.

This is fairly fundamental under GDPR. It's the 'data controller'/'data processor' split.

I suspect (but IANAL of course) that most CDNs would fail here, because the blanket agreements they offer are basically worthless.

But it's easy to imagine a CDN that has a different business model (charges a tiny amount pr. resource stored, for example), and is completely fine under the GDPR.
The technical implementation details don't matter.

What matters is that the IP will be shared with Google as consequence of visiting the site as long as the user didn't take additional actions and without the user having took additional actions which made that happen.
The point of GDPR is to bring the responsibility back into the provider’s side.

Instead of blaming the user for not having technical means and personal rules to apply privacy best practices, the site creator has to offer options to review the situation _before_ letting loose all the trackers and third party carnival.

And it makes sense to me. If tomorrow a site decide to get their favicon from microsoft‘s new marketing service, it would be unreasonable to expect the users to know to block that.
You have hit the nail on the head. Except for very large structures with simple carbon fiber layup, actually recycling carbon fiber seems hard to make practical. But if the thermoset material can be removed, the result is a relatively low volume, benign waste.
For one: experimentation. Experimenting with Ethereum. Onchain and offchain. For two: building a new community of creatives doing experimental things in business (such as this one) and art.
> nutmeg is toxic to humans in surprisingly small amounts. I wouldn't eat half a nutmeg by myself in one sitting!

It seems to be an affectation encouraged by the Long Now Foundation: https://longnow.org/ideas/02013/12/31/long-now-years-five-di...
He tested it by converting Euros to Dollars first, used it for a while and then put Dollars in to the same machine and they were shredded.

He did test but using the wrong mental model.
Why don't my submissions appear on HN?
I was not arguing the sanity of the policy. I was merely correcting GP’s interpretation of the ruling. Better for the millions of small businesses to only have to post a list of sub-processors than to have to determine what would be “necessary” in the eyes of the law.
The user's browser is not the user.

By that logic, any and all tracking pixels, javascript, iframes, etc would be regulatory no man's land, because all of those are technically just "intents" the server signals.

Nevertheless, users are seldomly in a position to decide whether or not those intents are followed (and site owners can get quite mad if a user instructed their browser to "decline" such an intent e.g. through an ad blocker). All of that makes it reasonable to treat those intents as commands.
I'm not trying to put any blame here, we can twist metaphors to support either side of the argument.

I definitely think that websites have a huge responsibility in keeping the user safe, but this feels to me like an over-extension of GDPR that will make websites much more difficult to develop in the future for the layman without a team of layers. It's a font, there was no malicious intent.
> This ruling will never stand in higher courts imo, because it would break the internet through fear.

It wouldn't break the internet. The internet was fine when the vast majority of sites hosted all their own content and didn't ask your browser to load crap from dozens of domains. It wasn't even that long ago. Honestly I think it was better.
Or like sticking the wrong plastic card into an ATM and observe the machine eat the card... and your bank account.

You'd expect that invalid actions lead to idempotent errors, not glitch states where you lose everything.
WTF is an actual real token of ETH chain, https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/wtf-token with a market cap of $1.3 million.

https://protos.com/crypto-airdrop-tries-cover-ethereum-gas-f... Did you know about the token beforehand and made a sarcastic post on it, or was it just a pure coincidence.
You’re making a good argument here. And you might just be right. You’re saying that website owners should be legal-politically responsible for typical privacy risks incurred by users if they are using popular browsers. And perhaps that is the right way to go.

However, what strikes me is that the court hasn’t even seen this problem at all. Your train of thought - that the request was issued from the user’s browser, but that the site owner was essentially in control because he essentially tricked the user into sharing his information with Google without being asked - is just not being discussed at all.

It might be very well that the end result is just. But then it would be a case of the blind chicken finding a grain.
Also the e-Privacy Directive does exempt strictly necessary cookies from any consent requirements, or am I completely confused now?

Edit: No, I'm not. The GDPR page I linked states the situation that follows both from the GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive. It also fits to what is written in the directive itself.
What dynamics were those?
Technical skill is kind of a requirement if you want to achieve something that's technical by nature - such as website development or web hosting.

And hosting a font file entails dumping it next to your index.html file and adding some very basic CSS. Not exactly difficult.
That is a feature if you plan to hack it
Did the defense industry have this huge budget back in the pre-WW1 days, though?

(Genuine question, I honestly have no idea)
Depends on what you count as earnings; Ethereum did $9.9b in transaction fees and tips alone last year.

[1] https://stark.mirror.xyz/q3OnsK7mvfGtTQ72nfoxLyEV5lfYOqUfJIo...
I went to some workshops when Ethereum was developed (sadly I decided against investing in the ICO because some aspects didn't convince me or I didn't understand them well enough). Even back then the discussion was that they were trying to do too much and it would be difficult to make it work reliably. Bitcoin deliberately chose a more conservative approach. Bitcoin also actually has a scripting language and allows for smart contracts, but they were much slower with unlocking its features for real. (I don't know the current state of it).

Just to say, it really doesn't make sense to judge "crypto" by the state of Ethereum. There are different philosophies, different approaches, different people.
Are you for, or against child prostitution? Because we have very good examples of exactly what happens when child labor and sweatshop-like labor conditions are either outlawed or boycotted, and the answer invariably is that the workers working in those places of their own free volition are harmed. [1]

The fact of the matter is that the only way to improve these people's conditions is to give them more and better options, not remove more of what little agency they have.

[1]https://www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/case-agai...
lol why are prices marked as going down more than 100%?
So why would you want pure Go? AFAIK Go is significantly slower than C.

There's of course safety issues with C, but sqlite is one of the most rigorously tested sw packages out there.
But if you link and your browser preloads links to speed up browsing, then your IP address would still be leaked.
The justice of the case does not tell you how much suffering will be caused by a particular course of action. People chose to run away, do nothing, comply, or collaborate all the time. And that may be the best way to protect your family. Talking about "just war" is a way or moralising a practical decision.
Per-capita expenditure on healthcare is higher in the US than anywhere else, we know this. But it doesn’t cover

- quality of healthcare

- how much is actually out of my pocket

Compared to Australia, NZ, the UK, I have better healthcare in the US. And financially it’s insignificant.
I don't think you get the agency argument. Of course the request to the third party provider is causally related to the website sending the instructions. But while that is necessary for it to happen, it is not sufficient. The user agent's execution, on behalf of the user, makes it happen.
That's the main revenue stream of Google it would pretty much mean Google itself would be forbidden.

The EU gives companies the option and only requires all this hoopla if you want to use the data for something else than the user requested. The "problem" is that Google does want that, as they are an advertising network, so they give web developers access to their tools but tell you that you have to ask the user for consent. That everyone totally forgets those warnings and somehow forgets that Google is an advertising network is on them, just like it is your responsibility what are random dependencies you download using whatever dependency tool you use.
I agree, but the definition of the law can also be interpreted many different ways, until it's clarified, I guess. This seems to me like a very grey area.

There was no trap, in my opinion, document clearly specifies that an additional resource, here a font, will help the website look as intended by the designer. It's visible and its effects are well known (it's part of a well understood specification) and can be blocked. Websites have a responsibility, absolutely, but this is just feels like going too far...
https://github.com/heiseonline/embetty

maybe just use software to fix the problem instead of spreading FUD. HuGe DaNgEr
Just saying that low-fat high-carbs is the natural optimum for food industry profits. Everything else is niche and will come with a higher markup.
If OS makers reached some kind of agreement to incorporate the most used 20 web fonts in their OS, 99% of this madness would be gone.
My common sense would say embedding a link to Google Fonts to make use of caching is possible is good for the user
This ruling will 100% be upheld in the higher courts.

The website is arguing that they have a legitimate interest in downloading fonts from Google in client browser, but as the court correctly states the website can provide these fonts directly. There is no reason to infringe on the user privacy, so there is no legitimate interest. And therefore use of Google fonts was without a legal basis.

BTW - The website could have used a different legal basis out of 6 available, like consent. See: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

> I'm curious to know whether DNS and your IP being in the the header of packets travelling through various different countries that can be sniffed is also considered as unwilful data sharing?

Unless there is another way to achieve the same purpose there is a legitimate interest in processing that data for the purposes expected by the client i.e. providing internet service.
When I do money transfers on bank accounts, I read the 10 digits 4-5 times. If the person that I'm transfering to is in the room, I ask them to read aloud their account number as I follow.

The fact that you have to get 10 digits right and that a typo can result in sending the money off somewhere unknown, disturbs me a lot. It's amazing how cryptocurrencies mimicked that part about existing digital money to perfection.

Give me a QR code, or wire my wallet up with an address book.
>where you can easily own a gun, homeschool your kid, or say whatever you want without fearing for your liberty (only your job)?

Wow, these are the most important things to you? Sounds pretty dystopian.
The one’s where the people who where there talk about the invention of TeX, Metafont and DVI (^_^)
Okay so the real issue here is that people want convenience, which requires "N" number of features, which results in an attack surface of "too large to make it secure".
But a site owner running Adsense won't get sued like the site owner running Google fonts did?
Social skills are a large set. Being introvert/shy and awkward in large gatherings doesn’t mean you can’t be a good friend. That stereotype of geeks all being “asocial assholes on the spectrum” belongs to the previous century, I don’t know, maybe watch a few YouTube D&D games to update your views.
That we’ve been doing a certain thing in the past, is no excuse to allow it to continue going forward. It is a good that we are challenging practices that we have taken for granted and validate whether we want such practices to continue.
Bell labs was the original mafia though. Rob pike, Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson...
Or maybe without alarmist headlines the media dies from lack of ad revenue.
Bit of a negative take.
> browsers need to immediately stop interpreting these commands, instead providing user prompts for _each offsite load event_

No, why should they? The ruling makes the (pretty realistic) assumption that users are in no position to decide about individual load requests. Therefore, those are the responsibility of the site author.

This way to interpret the events seems most consistent with real-world usage. Meanwhile pretending the user is responsible to vet any individual network requests seems like a legal fiction - except there is no reason why it should be applied.
Yes, that might be a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam#T...
Liking your country doesn't have to mean liking everything about it, and it doesn't have to mean not wanting to improve key quality of life metrics, which appears to be what this site is talking about. In fact, I would argue that thinking critically about areas where improvements can be made and pushing for those changes makes you more patriotic, not less.

>... some people like to live in a country where you can... say whatever you want without fearing for your liberty... Germans would rather not have these things...

I'm pretty sure Germany has roughly equivalent freedom of speech protection to the US.
Yes, but there is one small difference:

The sharing with ruters etc. is required to operate the service (website). Using a Google CDN for fonts isn't (required for operating a website).

The ruling explicitly points that out.

Furthermore DNS is handled by the contract you signed with you ISP or you explicitly changing it. Same for some other parts.
We should be building our tools that build our own things. This is the only way that humanity can collectively own its own future.

The right to repair is absolutely critical, but we should be using our right to build, to build a fairer future.
>The website merely tells the user’s browser that the content is intended to be displayed using a font that, if not installed on the user’s computer, can be downloaded from Google’s server.

"Your honor, I merely told the gun to strike the firing pin. Without a round chambered in, the gun wouldn't have done anything."
Alot. But not all.

Every CPU cycle used by software, including an Operating System, depletes a limited pool of immediate resources.

If the same device and functionality I enjoy have not changed, then the room for concern arises.