OP didn’t put this in the title but the article is from 2016. Turns out a lot has changed in the last decade and I think it’s likely that the article should be updated on what it’s like right now.
Readit Newsehhthing commented on CloudFlare is ruining the internet (for me) (2016) slashgeek.net/2016/05/17/... · Posted by u/nomilk
People seem to think this is anti-competitive.
But these companies have interposed themselves between purchasers and their drones. You have to activate your drone using an app, the apps have been connecting back to china since the early DJI products, and with an update they could just fly away.
Seriously, why do people need an account to activate/fly?
I don't think US-made drones would be any different.
Good way to get fired and sued.
Giving third parties access to your business emails can't possibly have negative repercussions right!
ehhthing commented on The Cloudflare outage might be a good thing gist.github.com/jbreckmck... · Posted by u/radeeyate
It would be a good thing, if it would cause anything to change. It obviously won't. As if a single person reading this post wasn't aware that the Internet is centralized, and couldn't name specifically a few sources of centralization (Cloudflare, AWS, Gmail, Github). As if it's the first time this happens. As if after the last time AWS failed (or the one before that, or one before…) anybody stopped using AWS. As if anybody could viably stop using them.
With the rise in unfriendly bots on the internet as well as DDoS botnets reaching 15 Tbps, I don’t think many people have much of a choice.
> Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate.
What sort of conditions would be allowable here? Its pretty easy to imagine conditions so onerous that it amounts to defacto termination of service.
Another thing to keep in mind is that these details can and likely will be clarified in the future as it goes through process.
ehhthing commented on Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine express.co.uk/news/uk/211... · Posted by u/ANewbury
Lots of the top comments talking about how Imgur can stay out of the UK more easily and not about how Imgur can comply with the law and protect children's data.
Why is it always that regulation is the problem, not the company being irresponsible with data.
> Why is it always that regulation is the problem, not the company being irresponsible with data.
Can you be irresponsible with childrens' data if you don't know whether your users are children?
ehhthing commented on iOS 18 breaks IMAPS self-signed certs forums.developer.apple.co... · Posted by u/mmd45
It did support it. One had to trust the certificate manually. I gave up on self-signed cents about 6 years ago.
It supported using self signed certs, but if the server suddenly switched from a self signed to a trusted CA-signed certificate, no prompt would be given. So the idea that self signed certificates are somehow more secure for this specific purpose is incorrect.
ehhthing commented on iOS 18 breaks IMAPS self-signed certs forums.developer.apple.co... · Posted by u/mmd45
That adds a lot of attack surface vs. issuing a self-signed cert and confirming it was securely verified by your imap client.
Not only could let’s encrypt issue a mitm cert for your imap connections, so could other CAs, and any cloud providers / dns providers you use.
iOS never supported this configuration regardless, a change in SSL certificate does not cause any kind of notification to the user.
Also, you're basically objecting to the entire idea of PKI for use in IMAP which is incredibly hard to justify. Perhaps you wish to use a different model for your own personal reasons but the default being PKI should not be controversial, and if you want to use your own model you should use a different mail client.
The author’s thesis is that the creators are being tricked. They own some complex bespoke right in Nebula (“an entirely new kind of cooperative corporate governance”), which they’re told and believe is equivalent to ownership, but actually it’s a sham that will break down if Standard ever wants to do something that isn’t in the creators’ interests.
The author doesn't go through this in nearly enough detail to make that argument convincing. Rather than spending the entire time trying to find what the "real" ownership amount, the author should've spent the time contextualizing the situation.
The author basically spends the entirety of one sentence dismissing the idea that there could exist a corporate governance model that allows creators to have a meaningful way to direct the company's decision making process and spends the rest of the time on a wild goose hunt to figure out the "actual" ownership percentages.
It was pretty obvious from the beginning given the repeated mentions of complex ownership models that the "real" numbers were not going to mean that creators owned "real" equity in the company. An investigation about what this actually means would've been a much better way to write this kind of essay.
Instead all we got was a long article with a conclusion that was reasonably obvious in hindsight, and no real evidence to support the thesis that "it's all just smoke and mirrors".
I think the last few paragraphs go off the rails. If creators didn't own (at least in some way) some controlling stake in Nebula, why would they publicly say that they do? Moreover, why would creators join Nebula if the terms were not beneficial to them in the first place?
I find it funny that the author writes
> It’s equally possible, however, that the system was set up in order to keep any meaningful power away from the creators.
Does the author really think that the chance that all of these creators are lying to their audiences is just as likely as them all telling the truth?
Also, the author even admits
> As I mentioned previously, some ownership of Standard has since been offered to other creators through stock options, but it’s unclear how much or what type of stock those options represent.
Owning equity (and thus voting power) in Standard also means that the creator has the ability to vote on how Standard operates Nebula. So the conclusion that the creators have no control over Nebula literally cannot be true. So the statement that "the creators own 0 percent of Nebula" is just misleading, and yet this is somehow the important conclusion that the author wants readers to know...?