Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | thesuperbigfrog's comments login

"Microsoft Edge runs on the same technology as Chrome, with the added trust of Microsoft."

They named their user tracking, telemetry, and "Buy Now, Pay Later" add-ons "trust"? That's really Orwellian.


"WAR IS PEACE"

"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"

"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"

"TRACKING IS SAFETY"

"CHOICE IS DEFAULT"


Literally 1984 /s

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


I'm struggling to understand how that quote could be anything but satire

Google's has been bashed so consistently on privacy issues on mainstream media that non-techies often associate them with creepy data collection.

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.


> Google's has been bashed so consistently on privacy issues on mainstream media that non-techies often associate them with creepy data collection

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.


>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?


There is nothing interesting or crazy about my statement. Microsoft sells software and services and has done so for the past 35 years. They started getting interested in people data recently but it is not their CORE business. How is this controversial?

I never heard non-tech people talking about whether they trust MS or Google more, like seriously :D


You're proving my point. The sources you linked are the eff, a techie's personal blog, arstechnica, and forbes. With the exception of forbes they're all tech niches.

Now look at mainstream media. CNN alone has 230K results for google privacy [0]. How many results for microsoft privacy? 16k [1]

[0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com%20google%20pr...

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com+microsoft+pri...


You're being intentionally obtuse. Google is a search engine product and a company. Microsoft is just a company. It stands to reason more people would search for the former.

The same search for bing has 5000 results.

Lol who searches for bing info on Google? Seriously?

Good lord. This is a search of the articles on the website cnn.com using Google search. It’s not Google Trends.

I chuckled a bit upon seeing those links but quickly realized that DDG gets its results from Bing and Altavista isn't around anymore.

However clean, possibly less bubbled browser, gets number over twice larger on the second link.


HN is on the fore-front of this Google bashing. Just look at this comment on another HN thread about "buy now, pay later". Here's the comment [1] which justifies MS actions:

> 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.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29354937


These are multi billion dollar companies that siphon money from all sorts of avenues powered by people’s ability to use the web. It is in their interest to develop these browsers. But they don’t have to syphon even more money from people by doing so. I don’t agree with your assessment.

It alludes to the hypocrisy in the claim:

> "with the added trust of Microsoft"

Hijacking a competitor's page demonstrates that Microsoft lacks integrity and cannot be trusted


The definition of trust that security professionals use is that A trusts B if B has some way to do something bad to A. A can stop trusting B by taking steps to eliminate the ability of B to harm A.

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".


It just means Microsoft trusts this technology.

But they developed it!

> I hate saving money,’ said no one ever. Microsoft Edge is the best browser for online shopping.

I hate having Microsoft scan my online shopping carts so they can collect data and hijack affiliate commissions. Do they think we're dumb?


Someone in their marketing run a survey of which brand is more trusted and they are playing on that card. The question would be did the survey cover both consumers and enterprise users as I think the answers to these would be different.

"Cube" would have been better:

"Square" => "Cube"

but

"Square" => "Block" just seems mediocre by comparison.

Certainly they want "Block" to invoke blockchain, but it seems more gimmicky with just "Block".


If anyone should've rebranded as Block, it's H&R Block. "It's cleaner."

H&R Block is well known as Block in the Kansas City area, where they’re headquartered, though I don’t know if that’s only among tech people or the general public.

And if they got then Jennifer Lopez as their spokesperson, they'd be a trillion dollar company right now.

I wonder if their lawyers are type type typing away at this moment...

H&R Block Blocks Block Rebranding?

Block is a reference to blockchain, ie Square is looking to move towards cryptocurrency more and more, so cube wouldn't have worked in this case.

Jack has been pretty explicit that they're looking toward bitcoin only, not cryptocurrency generally.

Missed opportunity on cubechain right there!

Chain also has some weird connotations, but Coin might have worked.

Chainlink and Coinbase already exist so they might not have wanted to be too similar to them.


Consider what a passport is: an official document issued by a government, certifying the holder's identity and citizenship and entitling them to travel under its protection to and from foreign countries.

>> 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.


Yeah, interesting. I agree about the blockchain parts.

>> 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?


Web3 requires retrofitting the web to use blockchain technologies to do what the web can mostly do already.

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.


1. The assumption that anonymous or pseudonymous identities undermine trust is very… naive and doesn’t consider the fact that many things are considered illegal but shouldn’t be and even if you think they should be, there will always be people that think otherwise. Like participating economically with a relative in an embargoed country for example.

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.


I think the names are very clever.

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.)

Compare: https://www.threevirtues.com/



thanks for this amazing list!


Yea, the thing is that, in my repo, I have added instructions on how to download a language and some description of it. I have maded so that anyone new to a language know where to download it, how the language is and an example of compilement

The Quicksilver word processor / desktop publishing system offered a user programming interface in lisp.

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 Moon-Earth war, read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.

For the Earth, Mars, and Asteroid belt conflict, watch "The Expanse".


Apologies on the title. It is a bit misleading in that it it is a different DAO (Krause House).

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.


Ya agreed, understand it's not your title. Seems like NPR is grouping it under "those krazy krypto kids" so it's all the same.

SPARK is a real-world system that allows some degree of formal proofs in the programming language and related tools:

https://learn.adacore.com/courses/intro-to-spark/index.html

https://docs.adacore.com/spark2014-docs/html/lrm/introductio...


I've tried SPARK. Compared to Frama-C, SPARK is not as powerful. Frama-C can prove the correctness of arbitrary heap manipulation algorithms. SPARK can handle singly linked lists but not doubly linked lists (last I checked).

Although, usually the people who use SPARK use it because it is certified for their industry (such as aerospace).


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

Search: