Everyone wants something like a local version of Airtable, but the issue is anyone that tries immediately turns it into a cloud product. Nocodb is better, but is still severely restricted & tries to think too much in terms of replicating Excel functions, rather than making it easy to create your own using JS/TS.
Readit NewsI spent some time with Apps Script a few weeks ago. It has some strange design decisions:
1) Everything runs on the server, including triggers and even custom functions! This means every script call requires a roundtrip, every cell using a custom function requires a roundtrip on each change, and it feels much slower than the rest of the UI.
2) You can't put a change trigger on a cell or subset of cells, only on the whole sheet. So you have to manually check which cell the trigger happened on.
3) Reading and writing cell values is so slow (can be a second or more per read or write) that the semi-official guidance is to do all reads in a bunch, then all writes in a bunch. And it's still slow then.
4) A lot of functionality, like adding custom menus, silently doesn't work on mobile. If your client wants to use Sheets on mobile, get ready to use silly workarounds, like using checkboxes as buttons to trigger scripts and hoping the user doesn't delete them.
Overall I got the feeling that Google never tried to "self host" any functionality of core Sheets using Apps Script. If they tried, it'd be much faster and more complete.
This is exactly the issue. I don't want server-side scripts, what I want with Sheets is the ability to run custom JS from the page itself.
> I don't think this was your original argument.
I’ll be honest, I really don’t know what argument you think I’m making or that you yourself are making.
The truth here is that this software will overwhelmingly be used in an illegal manner. The creators knew that when they wrote that disclaimer and we all know that reading the disclaimer. Yet the disclaimer is still placed there like it has some reason for existing beyond allowing everyone to pretend something that is happening isn’t happening. Your comments here seem to just be continuing that charade.
I’m not even condemning this software or illegally pirating movies and TV shows. I’m just remarking on the silliness of the disclaimer.
Same argument you're making would be that gun manufacturers know that their product will be used to kill lots of people, and any disclaimer on the package to not murder is silly. Would you make that argument with a straight face or change your argument as a result?
Or does it make sense to put a disclaimer on there, not just from a legal perspective, but to actively discourage those users who haven't made up their mind already? While people absolutely can use their software for pirating content—which is in open debate about the ethics—I've known very few individuals who torrent to actually profit from others material, but I know of plenty anti-piracy advocates who use stolen content for profit.
I've also known bucketloads of people that have paid $50+ for a movie in the theater or $10+ for a rental at home, only realize how badly they were duped by the industry to give money for something that was practically garbage, which they ended up not watching anyway yet the purchase was nonrefundable, which unfortunately happens several times because of all the fake interest in something actually being advertising, which appeals to their desire to fit in. It is often very exploitative.
I've also known a descent amount of people that discovered content they found joy in by torrenting, maybe at the time being depressed... struggling to get out of bed or find inspiration, and as a result improved their condition to become pretty big supporters of those who made that content later on, which they would then gladly pay for thereafter.
Seriously, any actual good artist I've known usually would be the first to encourage someone to pirate their content because they understand that the people that like it will support them, and the people that don't... they have no desire to exploit them.
Like you can claim people shouldn't shoot up heroine, while still giving them clean needles if they're still going to do it.
timeflex commented on 19% of California houses are owned by investors ocregister.com/2025/07/21... · Posted by u/milleramp
California real estate is such a tragedy, as huge portions of the population are suffering from a housing shortage caused almost exclusively by not building enough homes.
A majority of people own real estate, so they're happy with the status quo. Why would you put up with even the slightest personal inconvenience from added housing, if all it got you was a reduced value of your property?
A majority of banks & investors own real estate. You think people have the funds to pay cash at market rate? I've got an even better idea though to deal with people like this. About time we give renters the same rights as labor unions. If you think it is an inconvenience now, wait until it becomes legal for renters to go on strike & landlords are forced to negotiate in good faith.
Holy the pomp in this thread. It would perhaps help for some people here to have the context that this isn't some random person on the internet but Dan Abromov -- probably one of the most influential figures in building React (if not one of the creators, iirc)
You're free to say thank you but acting like everyone else here should is weird. There are a lot of good points.
timeflex commented on Proton threatens to quit Switzerland over new surveillance law techradar.com/vpn/vpn-pri... · Posted by u/taubek
This is what constitutions are for. When you have the support, you install a constitutional protection that says the government can't do this. Repealing the protection requires the same super-majority needed to pass it, so changing the law isn't just a matter of the tyrants needing to get back to 51% from 49%, they have to get from 33% to 67%.
Then you layer these protections against multiple levels of government so they'd all have to be repealed together by separate legislatures before the government is allowed to do it, discouraging the attempt.
And then you make it so when the tyrants do get back to 51% that they can just ignore the constitution instead. And might as well make sure there are only two major political parties so even though the tyrants ignore the constitution, that the other 49% will stay busy stuffing their pockets with foreign donations.
timeflex commented on The cryptography behind passkeys blog.trailofbits.com/2025... · Posted by u/tatersolid
KeepassXC lets you export the private key, which you can then back up or import into another KeepassXC instance. I have tested this, it works. I even shipped my exported private key off to a friend in another state and he was able to import it into a KeepassXC instance and log in to my account. Presumably another password manager could support importing the data, as it's just plaintext, though I don't know if any do.
Unfortunately the spec authors think this export feature violates the spec and have threatened KeepassXC with being banned by authenticating websites[1]. This explicit support from the spec authors for client banning makes passkeys non-viable to me. The websites I log in to should not be able to restrict what clients I choose to use to manage my own data.
[1] Spec author writes, "To be very honest here, you risk having KeePassXC blocked by relying parties. ... (RPs [may] block you, something that I have previously rallied against but rethinking as of late because of these situations)." https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10407
Furthermore, they "heard rumblings that KeepassXC is likely to be featured in a few industry presentations that highlight security challenges with passkey providers."
Basically, do what we say or expect us to have our corporate sponsors write bad press about your security.
timeflex commented on The cryptography behind passkeys blog.trailofbits.com/2025... · Posted by u/tatersolid
KeepassXC is a good client that lets you handle your data how you want. I wrote a pro-Passkey blog post here[1] that explains how to do your own syncing, though I later discovered Passkeys are explicitly built to support proprietary software vendor lock in and had to revoke my support. If you are concerned about being able to control your own data outside of the big tech ecosystem, I strongly recommend avoiding passkeys entirely. It is possible for now, but they are not built for that and the spec authors are actively hostile to you managing your own data.
[1] https://www.smokingonabike.com/2025/01/04/passkey-marketing-...
That is what I've noticed as well. The thread regarding KeePassXC is crazy... straight up threatening negative PR because KeePassXC allows people to store their private key, demanding that they instead take away user choice and modify their app to hide & prevent users from doing things. Passkeys appear to me to be nothing more than a corporate gimmick, and to be honest, I personally think in many instances they actually make you less secure... getting a fingerprint is way easier than making someone tell you their password. Now days the intelligence agencies likely already have your fingerprints as well.
Put all of that together, and you get a website that queries S3 with no backend at all. Amazing.