People are surely entitled to their own opinions. I read yours. I’ve concluded that you’re a moron.

I don’t remember the specific article I read that dove into this but it was essentially sold due to it being one of the first large data collections (user data). I’m not sure the extent its traweled now but before the social media machine took off, it was the largest if not one of the largest concentrations of actual data points to run algorithms against.

Yeah, definitely the downfall that spans way back to IBM. Thankfully my place gives that choice to folks (Apple and Microsoft both being proprietary but hey one is Unix based).

I’m so happy that I never have to use that dog shit OS ever again, or any of their software for that matter.

I for sure feel this sentiment but damn does Qud hit that sweet spot. Like, sometimes I don’t want to feel like I’m writing a dissertation - which is what CDDA can feel like sometimes - but I still want said depth, or at least the feeling of said depth. CoQ hits that sweet spot. So much charm too, love it.

Going to piggyback on this and just throw this here, which details the black box that is Apple data ingestion: https://gist.github.com/iosecure/357e724811fe04167332ef54e736670d.

I had used iOS on and off for years but I feel like I’m finally done with both companies. Its a very interesting read. The only reason Apple seems like a better company with data is a) they aren’t a full blown meta or alphabet and b) they market it more cleanly.

The portion about the notification center and all of the integrations was pretty mind blowing for me. Like it makes sense when its spelled out - how invasive it is, which is also what makes it the perfect ad serving vehicle.

Yeah, definitely. Some form of extortion because ultimately that’s what it will be either way. I mean, that’s really the whole point of being the party that chooses what is authentic or not (and, what the definition of that word even means in this context). Monetary, data, whatever. Gotta keep the bottom line increasing for shareholders.

Yeah, definitely. Some form of extortion because ultimately that’s what will happen either way. I mean, that’s really the whole point of being the party that chooses what is authentic or not (and, what the definition of that word even means in this context). Monetary, data, whatever. Gotta keep the bottom line increasing for shareholders.

Pardon formatting, on mobile. Its a form of device authentication. Apple does this with safari already BTW, and it can reduce things like captcha because the authentication is done on the backend when a request hits a server. While still an issue in concept with Apple doing it, chromium browsers are a much larger market share. In layman’s terms this is basically the company saying, hey you are attempting to visit this site, we need to verify the device (or browser, or add on configuration, or no ad blocker, etc) is ‘authentic’. Which of course is nebulous. It can be whatever the entity in charge of attestation wants it to be.

This sets the precedent that whomever is controlling verification, can deny whomever they see fit. I’m running GrapheneOS on my phone currently, they could deny for that. Or, if you are blocking ads. Maybe you’re not sharing specific information about your device, and they want to harvest that. Too bad, comply or you’re ‘not allowed to do x or y’.

This is the gist. The web should be able to be accessed by anybody. It isn’t for companies to own nor should it be built that way. Web2 is a corporate hellscape.

Edit wrt Safari: https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-attestation/