They named their user tracking, telemetry, and "Buy Now, Pay Later" add-ons "trust"? That's really Orwellian.
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"
"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
"TRACKING IS SAFETY"
"CHOICE IS DEFAULT"
But really I feel like people jump to the antiauthoritarian rhetoric really quickly nowadays. I know your making a joke, but damn if I'm not worried we're kind of normalizing the concept
Microsoft hasn't been in the news as much, at least not regarding privacy matters. They're often seen by the public as the solid company behind trusted products like Office and Windows.
What? Every non-tech person I see is happily running Google Chrome and has never even considered Firefox. Hell, I think most still think Google is one of the "good guys".
Non-tech people still trust Google much more than Microsoft. Microsoft is bad, but they haven't made your data their core business just yet.
That's pretty interesting claim, what makes you think so?
...and many more.
Now look at mainstream media. CNN alone has 230K results for google privacy . How many results for microsoft privacy? 16k 
However clean, possibly less bubbled browser, gets number over twice larger on the second link.
> Maintaining browsers has become a significant undertaking, so complex that only well-funded corporate interests can afford to keep one patched and up-to-date with the latest web standards. It surpassed operating system complexity. It surpassed pretty much everything else too.
So we can forget about it ever being truly "free" (and free from ads) unless we simplify the web somehow. I also don't think we're going to go back in time and start cutting features out of browsers. So that isn't going to happen
Google develops Chromium and Google gets constantly bashed for selling ads. MS modifies Chromium and adds their own branding and sell ads. MS is just trying to cover their development cost.
> "with the added trust of Microsoft"
Hijacking a competitor's page demonstrates that Microsoft lacks integrity and cannot be trusted
So, the statement "Microsoft Edge runs on the same technology as Chrome, with the added trust of Microsoft" actually means "Microsoft Edge runs on the same technology as Chrome, with the added ability for Microsoft to screw you over".
I hate having Microsoft scan my online shopping carts so they can collect data and hijack affiliate commissions. Do they think we're dumb?
"Square" => "Cube"
"Square" => "Block" just seems mediocre by comparison.
Certainly they want "Block" to invoke blockchain, but it seems more gimmicky with just "Block".
>> Would it make sense to have passports issued by an entity that is not a country?
Not really. What would it even mean?
If I have a digitally signed document that says "FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME is a citizen of the Internet" or "FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME is a certified member of Blockchain Buddies" would it be officially recognized by other governments?
Passports are legal documents which show that a person belongs to a certain nation and that that nation "has their back" or at a minimum where to send the person if you want to deport them.
>> How about virtual passports? Blockchain?
Nations could issue fully digital passports or identity certificates, but it does not need blockchain-based technology to work. Existing cryptography tech like digitally-signed certificates and public key cryptography are sufficient.
>> certifying the holder's identity and citizenship and entitling them to travel under its protection
Couldn't a company certify someone's identity too and provide the "protection" too?
>> Not really. What would it even mean?
For example, people from <bad country> wouldn't be denied entry to another country just because they were born there. A company/org could provide a more hollistic identity?
Finally, couldn't the transition start if a small country rents its passport-issuing powers to a company for a fee (similar to the golden visa programs)? That could get the startup going, allowing it to offer passport subscriptions (without nationality perhaps) to citizens of the world?
In "Blockchains Are a Bad Idea", James Mickens gives several arguments against blockchain-based systems like Bitcoin:
See his presentation here: https://youtu.be/15RTC22Z2xI
1. People have out-of-band trust relationships in real life which reduce the likelihood of malice. Bitcoin-style anonymous identities undermine trust relationships and are not needed for legitimate (not illegal) transactions.
2. Real life legal systems encourage good behaviors. If you have a dispute with someone, you can sue them. Bitcoin and related systems lack these protections.
3. Existing tools such as public-key cryptography and digital signatures can provide most of the functionality that applications need without the problems that blockchain-based systems have.
2. Real life legal systems can still be used. Stolen coins can and have be blacklisted by court of law and chainanalysis companies meaning they are frozen immediately at fiat off ramps. Just like would happen with a fungible physical asset like gold.
3. This is 100% true. The thing is one of the problems that is fixed by blockchain based systems is trust. Trust that the source code won’t be changed because of the very pecuniary incentives people keep hating on.
The OS is named Hubris. Building a new Operating System does take a lot of confidence.
The debugger is named Humility. It can be humbling to know your program is not working correctly and use a tool to discover how it is broken.
Impatience would be a great name for the task scheduler. (Because you want your task to run NOW!)
Laziness would be a great name for a hardware-based watchdog timer. (Because you keep on putting it off / resetting it until later.)
The Quicksilver lisp used object-oriented programming and most of the documents and desktop system were objects. Calling methods on those objects originally used a function called "tell" for message passing:
(tell object method parameter1 parameter2)
Later they deprecated "tell" in favor of:
(method object parameter1 parameter2)
For the Earth, Mars, and Asteroid belt conflict, watch "The Expanse".
Just following the HN guideline: "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html with a minor change to the original title to fit length restrictions.
Not sure if the NPR headline writers understood the DAO difference or just wanted to generate more interest in the story.
Although, usually the people who use SPARK use it because it is certified for their industry (such as aerospace).