> You can search "!w Gabriel Weinberg" and it will open the Wikipedia article because of the leading exclamation mark and w
Just for anyone else who isn’t aware, the bang commands can be anywhere in the search string, and need not necessarily be at the beginning.
All these queries will take you to Wikipedia for the term:
"!w Gabriel Weinberg"
"Gabriel !w Weinberg"
"Gabriel Weinberg !w"
Many a times when I find the default DuckDuckGo search results inadequate and want to go to Google search, I just put a “!g” as a separate term anywhere within the search string and hit enter. This is especially useful on mobile where the search string may be a lot longer than the visible text box and I can’t be bothered to move the cursor.
Tapping in different parts of the text box, or dragging the finger in the text box, allow a lot more precise control than what one can easily do by dragging the space bar in the iPhone keyboard, much closer to what you can do on a full computer with regular keyboard and mouse.
The difference is especially noticeable for tasks like editing / deleting / selecting specific parts of long URLs, and on smaller phones where the iPhone space bar is smaller than on larger phones.
I love that duck.ai provides a more private way to use different smaller and medium (?) scale LLMs.
I don’t like the duck.ai interface much (choosing a different LLM is not easy once you’re already in a conversation), but I use it a lot more than I use the DuckDuckGo search engine (the results from the latter aren’t great).
Just like with DuckDuckGo search, where I start a search and then use the !g bang command to go to Google for better results if needed, I try duck.ai and then move to ChatGPT (without any account) when even the best models in duck.ai aren’t good enough.
For most simpler queries though — where I’m just looking to learn a bit about something as opposed to finding a solution for a specific (more complex) question or problem — duck.ai with its GPT 5 models are more than adequate (even the 4o mini is fine).
I really love duck.ai's minimalist approach to questions when I search on duckduckgo and overall enjoy it more than say chatgpt etc. as an normal consumer and even more than occasional google ai's search (I have been fully using duckduckgo for 3 years or 4 years at this point)
Its just the right amount of AI with all the other things and I can have a lot of freedom/customizability/block AI and they provide subdomains for a lot of things (I found out about noai.duckduckgo.com from here and other things too) and overall feel like its one of the best search engines.
I wish if they could create their own index tho because I do not trust microsoft so much.
I wonder why people still use google when there is duckduckgo. I suppose monopoly might be the answer but I wish if there was more awareness about duckduckgo.
A couple of quick observations and comments after skimming through this (some of these are mentioned or hinted at in the RFC).
With HTTPS used almost everywhere, using this QUERY method (when standardized) could prevent bookmarking specific “GET” URLs if the developers thoughtlessly replace GET everywhere with QUERY.
One of the advantages of GET is the direct visibility, which makes modifications simple and easy for almost anyone (end users, testers, etc.).
The larger question I have is who will choose to adopt it sooner, with web servers, web application frameworks and web browsers in the mix.
The situations where I've wished for GET to be able to have a (typically JSON) body were all in situations where the request isn't "user visible" in the first place. That is: API calls, SPA apps, ajax requests, that sort of thing. Not something people are really supposed to bookmark or call directly.
If today you're doing some JS-fu to make an ajax GET request then you already need to do something to have permalinks (if desired).
Completely worth bringing up and thinking about, but unless I'm missing something I don't think a QUERY verb will change all that much here?
> unless I'm missing something I don't think a QUERY verb will change all that much here?
The semantics are important. GET APIs are expected to be safe, idempotent, and cache-friendly. When you are unable to use GET for technical reasons and move to POST, suddenly none of the infrastructure (like routers, gateways, or generic http libs) can make these assumptions about your API. For example, many tools will not attempt to put retry logic around POST calls, because they cannot be sure that retrying is safe.
Having the QUERY verb allows us to overcome the technical limitations of GET without having to drop the safety expectations.
I like the safety aspect of QUERY. Having CDNs cache based off the semantics of the content might be a hard ask. I wonder if this might lead to a standards based query language being designed and a push for CDNs to support it. Otherwise you probably need to implement your own edge processing of the request and cache handling for any content type you care to handle.
You can, and that is mentioned in RFC 9110... along with the cons for doing so.
> Although request message framing is independent of the method used, content received in a GET request has no generally defined semantics, cannot alter the meaning or target of the request, and might lead some implementations to reject the request and close the connection because of its potential as a request smuggling attack (Section 11.2 of [HTTP/1.1]). A client SHOULD NOT generate content in a GET request unless it is made directly to an origin server that has previously indicated, in or out of band, that such a request has a purpose and will be adequately supported. An origin server SHOULD NOT rely on private agreements to receive content, since participants in HTTP communication are often unaware of intermediaries along the request chain.
QUERY is a new option to help avoid some of those downsides.
Just release change to this RFC and adjust GET body semantics. Much easier than introducing a whole new verb and already supported in a lot of software.
> With HTTPS used almost everywhere, using this QUERY method (when standardized) could prevent bookmarking specific “GET” URLs if the developers thoughtlessly replace GET everywhere with QUERY.
You're bothering about non-issues. Bookmarks support GET requests, not any other verb. Like it has always been, if you need to support bookmarks then you implement bookmarkeable URLs to be used with GET requests.
Also, your far-fetched example failed to account for the fact that nowadays POST requests are used to query.
I read through this. I don't think Proton Mail is a good replacement for Signal (it's worse because Proton does log and share IP addresses of users with a court order).
One thing I dislike about Signal on its privacy posture is that the moment you register, anyone who already has Signal and has your phone number in their contacts list will get a message saying you're on Signal. This is a good way for others with bad intentions to know about your presence on the platform. The options to hide your phone number are available only after registering on Signal (after this broadcast has already happened) and when the user figures out that this is possible somewhere deep in the settings.
On registration Signal could ask whether to inform all random people who happen to have your number. But since unused/discarded phone numbers are recycled by carriers to other customers within a matter of weeks or months or years (depending on where you are), your presence on Signal may be sent to someone you've never ever known or has known you. Signal ought to remove this broadcast on registration. Telegram (and I guess WhatsApp) also suffer from the same issue.
That's false. You can set your phone number discovery to None and even your contacts cannot find you unless you explicitly message them or share your username
Those that depend on creating new accounts to replace blocked ones.
Getting a new phone number isn't expensive, but it's infinitely more expensive than zero. And if a service is willing to block the phone companies that offer the cheapest new numbers, the price rises again.
Never on iOS or any other Apple platform. Signal is designed not to be able to backup to iCloud either. The only option iOS users have had over the last few years is to do a device to device transfer where both phones are expected to be in physical proximity and it takes hours to transfer the data. Lost phone has meant losing all chats.
WhatsApp, which is infamous by association with Meta, backs up to Google Drive or wherever.
> Wherever you can host something like WordPress, you can host Campfire
I’m going to be pedantic here, but this statement is not true. I host a website on a provider that allows WordPress (PHP) along with MySQL, but
> System requirements & installation
> Campfire is packed as a Docker container image
the web host provider does not allow Docker (it runs on BSD).
I’d suggest improving the system requirements section by actually stating the system requirements. To me the mention of Docker without other details is a black box that I cannot have any intuition for.
I appreciate the feedback. I’ve updated the information to remove the WordPress reference and clarified that the OS must support containerization. Thanks!
I feel what this article says based on some recent (non-catastrophic) experiences. I think I’m probably an above average user when it comes to Excel skills. I love spreadsheets. But I struggle with formulas like index, match, vlookup/xlookup and many others, and even more so when it requires nesting one within another and coming up with the underlying logic that leads to some complex nested formulas.
Over the past couple of months, I’ve tried some smaller models on duck.ai and also ChatGPT directly to create some columns and formulas for a specific purpose. I found that ChatGPT is a lot better than the “mini” models on duck.ai. But in all these cases, though these platforms seemed more capable than me and could make attempts to explain their formulas, they were many a times creating junk and “looping” back with formulas that didn’t really work. I had to point out the result (blank or some #REF or other error) multiple times and they would acknowledge that there’s an issue and provide a working formula. That wouldn’t work either!
I really love that these LLMs can sort of “understand” what I’m asking, break it down in English, and provide answers. But the end result has been an exercise in frustration and waste of time.
Initially I really thought and believed that LLMs could make Excel more approachable and easier to use — like you tell it what you want and it’ll figure it out and give the magic incantations (formulas). Now I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that if ChatGPT (which I presume powers Copilot as well) struggles and hallucinates so much. I personally don’t have much hope with the (comparatively) smaller and older models.
Authenticate where? How does the authentication prove that the intended recipient is the one who has clicked on the link and should be able to view? What happens if the email is forwarded with the link? What should one do to forward the email to someone without this encryption?
Organizations may need ways to store, archive and manage received email content from others.
I don’t understand what problem this solves for organizations and how.
Microsoft Outlook 365 has a somewhat similar feature where the email is just a link to hosted content on its servers (this kind of functionality isn’t new or recent on other platforms). It doesn’t require any authentication by the recipient. IIRC, the sender can also decide on the expiry of the content.
> How does the authentication prove that the intended recipient is the one who has clicked on the link and should be able to view?
You log in with a Google account associated with the recipient address. You prove you control the email by putting in a code Google sends you.
> What happens if the email is forwarded with the link?
They can't open it because they don't have access to the Google account associated with your email address.
> What should one do to forward the email to someone without this encryption?
Obviously, encrypted emails are not meant to be forwarded. Nothing prevents you from taking a photo though. Maybe copy and paste will work.
> Organizations may need ways to store, archive and manage received email content from others.
Organizations can't control how they receive information. It doesn't matter what they want in this regard. If a judge orders them to do something about it, that's for the judge to figure out.
> I don’t understand what problem this solves for organizations and how.
It keeps messages private. You don't see why organizations in e.g. health care, law, or the military want increased privacy of messages in a way that is super easy to use? And where recipients can't accidentally forward sensitive messages? A lot of this is determined by compliance requirements too.
I have used a similar service. Anytime you want to access the link, you must enter a code sent to your email. So if you forward the link, and the person to whom you forward it click the link, they need you to also forward the code to them.
Last I checked, Proton Mail does not support standard email client protocols. So you’re stuck with its apps and a browser interface or with buying a paid subscription and using a bridge software on desktop to use a client like Thunderbird. Getting mails out of Proton Mail is also not as easy as setting up a client with IMAP or using other tools like imapsync.
The point is that Google is harming paying customers, and as a paying customer Proton respects me more and it is based in Europe, which is a big plus for me.
> Looks like Google wants to force people to use the WebUI instead of email clients (no google ads on IMAP/POP).
I think that’s a valid criticism, but Protonmail also doesn’t allow people to use a standard email client. I agree with the parent commenter that it’s strange that you’re suggesting it as an alternative, especially when there’s services like Fastmail and Purelymail that both have accessible human support and let you use a standard email client.
Proton has an official bridge software which sets up a local imap/smtp server. I then can use a 3rd party email client. The reason they don't support it directly from their servers is it allows them to not have to decrypt emails in their servers. Only the client can decrypt emails as everything in proton is encrypted so that proton cannot see your emails
The one thing I don’t like about both Proton and Tuta is that they don’t support IMAP. Users of these platforms would find it a bit more difficult to move their emails out of the system if they wish to.
Just for anyone else who isn’t aware, the bang commands can be anywhere in the search string, and need not necessarily be at the beginning.
All these queries will take you to Wikipedia for the term:
"!w Gabriel Weinberg"
"Gabriel !w Weinberg"
"Gabriel Weinberg !w"
Many a times when I find the default DuckDuckGo search results inadequate and want to go to Google search, I just put a “!g” as a separate term anywhere within the search string and hit enter. This is especially useful on mobile where the search string may be a lot longer than the visible text box and I can’t be bothered to move the cursor.
reply