Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | traverseda's commentslogin

Yeah, but it's running on a device that has closed source blobs in it. Hell, even the linux kernel often has firmware blobs for wifi devices.

But they're creating the demand themselves by putting AI features that may not be creating actual value for users.

Best way to create demand is hallucinations that create insane back and forth and waste of credits.

Yeah this is like going out and getting a new cat every day and then announcing that you’ll be spending unprecedented amounts of money on cat food this year.

Like okay, that’s probably true, but nobody — literally nobody — told you that you need to keep 400 cats in your house


ImHex will tell you if it's compressed. Do you understand data structures? Floats, all those data types?

I'd suggest looking at a format like msgpack to see what a binary data format could look like: https://msgpack.org/

Then be aware that proprietary formats are going to be a lot more complicated. Or maybe it's just zipped up json data, only way to tell is to start poking around at it.


>We did this so we can scale.

>Python async sucks

Python async may make certain types of IO-blocked tasks simpler, but it is not going to scale a web app. Now maybe this isn't a web app, I can't really tell. But this is not going to scale to a cluster of machines.

You need to use a distributed task queue like celery.


How do you justify specializing in mobile development when it's very clear that you're just sharecroppers on someone else's land?


Like Uber drivers' using their girlfriends' ID verification because they have a criminal record, you can also just cut in some random guy to borrow his ID for another chance. There should be plenty of dudes available willing to sell an ID verification for cheap in poorer countries but there's also plenty in wealthy countries because very few anywhere were ever going to have a Google developer account in the first place.


Eventually you run out of IDs, and as a Sybil attack you're gonna get slowed down.

(remote identity proofing and fraud mitigation is a component of my work in finance)

https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3-Implementation-Resources/63A...

https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3-Implementation-Resources/63A...


I wouldn't recommend this because it borders on identity theft. But maybe the law is more lenient about that in the US.


Some of us started long long ago, Android 1.0 time, when Google seemed like a different company. Their first blogs didn't mention splitting your personal google account from your developer account. I never heard of anyone getting banned. Oh boy, things have changed!


Heh, I have been wondering about this for a very long time. The walled garden toll booth is too strict.

For example, the old Uber with the crazy thing they did. What if in the alternate universe they straight up got banned? That’s it. All investments would go to zero.


> What if in the alternate universe they straight up got banned?

The zeitgeist of the time wouldn't have allowed that. Everybody talking about banning Uber or Airbnb was framed as an enemy of progress.


Isn't it simple? You do it because it makes money.

Lots of businesses can fail at any time. People still run them and work for them as long as it makes money, and WHEN it stops working, they stop that and do something else to make money. All business is ephemeral.


It doesn't matter. As long as you can spam people with crap like popups and notifications easier than on the web, we will still see all those unnecessary 'apps' that could just be a web page.


People want apps.

Businesses want to make money on the apps people want.

Businesses exchange money for goods and services.

You exchange money for food and shelter.


No one is going to walk away from that kind of alliance tomorrow, sure. Stuff like "we're going to remotely disable military equipment we've sold you" is going to have consequences though. It's not walking away from alliances, it's just focusing on more stable countries.


To clarify: it's not exactly "remotely disable".

It's "block everything that depends on US clouds", which is a considerable downgrade (because you can't upload all mission parameters to an airplane without going through the cloud, and you can't use self-diagnosis features), but not entirely a kill switch. Close enough, though.


> Stuff like "we're going to remotely disable military equipment we've sold you" is going to have consequences though.

Proof of this happening or even having the capability of happening? There is none.


A specific women? Women in general? Is vague-posting back in vogue?


GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it.


But why start from scratch with a “Linux phone” when we can continue on the basis of GrapheneOS. The source is there and it works.

Apps that require Google Play Service or some form of attestation will not run on a Linux phone either.


What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP.

GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader).

But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think.


GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS.


Graphene is in talks with an OEM to make compatible devices. AOSP is free software, the only issue here is finding devices where it can be installed.


I'm confused... how is it different from what I said?


https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107302

How can we make this happen? I am a programmer but I am not in a good position to do this specific kind of programming myself. This seems tightly integrated to a lot of stuff I don't have a good understanding of. Is there a way to donate to specific features, could I do some crowdfunding to hire a dev to do this feature and if so who? Is there any way at all you can think of that I could effect this feature landing other than spending a few years learning this kind of development?


I can't quite promise yet that we will do this, but let's say there have been two recent developments that increase the probability by quite a lot:

- X11 is nearing EOL, and once we drop support for it this will get a lot less painful to do.

- If we want to switch to a virtual desktop / paging protocol that supports this we need to switch away from the current one, and it just so happens that in late 2024 a new protocol called ext-workspace made it into Wayland that is flexible enough to work for this purpose.

I'd say at this point the biggest problem is designing a UX for it that makes sense and doesn't confuse the hell out of people. If you want to contribute to e.g. that design discussion in our VDG working group that could be a good place to start.

> could I do some crowdfunding to hire a dev to do this feature and if so who?

Someone else has pledged a bounty:

https://discuss.kde.org/t/bug-fix-per-screen-virtual-desktop...


What alternative do you suggest?


[flagged]


Wait, installing nmap on your laptop from a Linux distribution's repositories is a crime in Germany?


No, OP loves to claim almost daily how nearly everything is illegal in Germany, and never provides any sources or court cases when asked for proof, just "google it yourself" or "the German criminal code".


Not really, so long as you don't use it for anything 'bad'. i.e. if you're just running against your local network, who's gonna report it?


Surely then it's the 'use', not the 'possession' that's a criminal offence? Or is it still a criminal offence to possess it, but you're fine as long as no one finds out? Because that doesn't stop it being a criminal offence.


My basic understanding is that a 'dual use' tool is moreso based on intent; using the same analogy as when this came up on HN over a decade ago [0], a good kitchen knife can be at least as dangerous as a lot of explicitly 'banned' knives but because it has a non-illegal use it doesn't fall into the same category as, say, a DDOS tool. And AFAIK there hasn't (yet) been a case where NMAP has gotten someone in Germany in trouble with the law for possessing or using within their local subnet.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3797151


This might be akin to lockpicks in the United States. Not illegal in and of themselves, but if you are possessing them with intent, it's a different matter.


I think it's worth mentioning that this varies by state... while most allow you to possess lockpicking tools freely, some states do have "possession with intent" rules you need to be careful of.


And the police can always fabricate intent.


It's "whoever prepares for the commission of a [hacking] offence by acquiring computer programs for the commission of the offence" and it's been interpreted that downloading nmap can be preparing for an offence, therefore punishable. Giving copies to others (e.g. running a Debian mirror) is also likely illegal, but I doubt anyone's been charged for that yet.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...


>Not sure about US law, but in Germany, creating or possessing a hacking tool (including things like nmap) is a criminal offence.

Surely that must be wrong, are security certs not a thing in Germany?



Ugh. It does look like the wording gives some room though?

As in, it requires “preparing the commission of an offense”. Does acquiring the tool for other uses like learning or professional training help?

Or even better, shouldn’t lack of proof that the user had malicious intent be enough?


Police can always fabricate intent (this is not specific to Germany - they can just say you told them you were going to hack someone, or your actions or body language obviously showed it) and then in practice it's up to you to show an alternative interpretation of facts. If you're studying computer security, that might get you off - but who better than a computer security student to do actual hacking?


Hard disagree, I think there is very important context missing here, notably:

> 2. computer programs for the purpose of the commission of such an offence

Big huge emphasis on "for the purpose of", meaning there must be clear intent to cause harm or break the law, especially for a criminal case. This assumes the purpose of the program is not inherently for hacking/criminal purposes, which I do not believe would be hard to argue that nmap is not designed as a "hacking tool".

Germany appears to have a similar standard to US criminal cases where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt": https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/40966/innocent-until...


In the US you’re allowed to have pretty much whatever code you want on your computer, obviously excepting binary representations of illegal photo/video content.

How do they even enforce it? Or is it just an extra law to throw at someone already convicted of something?


That is fucking insane.

Basically Linux itself would be classified as a "hacking tool".


Well we are heading in that direction anyway. With software platforms getting more locked down. Having a rooted phone now is already enough to get banned from bank apps because you're not in the comfortable fluffy death grip of Google.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: