ruffsl

My phone keyboard spelling aside, when the acronym was first coined, correct, but it seems to have sence devolved into more of a colloquialism for large scale tech related corporations, outliving the precise corporate restructuring that once comprised the old acronym. At least that's what I've experienced in my workplaces, as well as the comments here:

• https://programming.dev/comment/1451760

Was there a equivalent house hold colloquialism for IBM, HP, Xerox, Bell System, etc. back in the day?

I think if the local and remote instances are federated - for posts submitted to remote communities that have subscribers from the local instance - posts to the local instance can be annotated with cross-posted to: links, whenever the local instance is aware of other federated posts that have a matching URL in other OP posts.

A single OP can manually cross post to other communities using the cross-post button next to the title of a post, although that will auto populate the body text of the new post with quoted text from the original, as well as an embedded hyperlink to the original.

So coss-posts can be both auto detected by Lemmy, or manually created by OP(s).

They can try and reinvent themselves all they'd like, but I can't be bothered to keep up with their rebrandings if they can't be bothered to commit and sell off the domain name. Something something sacrifice, something, law of Equivalent exchange. /s

scrambling to lock their doors

From a consumer perspective, it seems like all the FANG conglomerates are trying to shut the stable door after the AI horse has bolted, but perhaps from an industry perspective, their just trying to pull up the ladder behind themselves to curb competition, or stall any emerging upstarts, just like most FANGs where themselves only decades ago.

Yeah, I found the discussions on HN and the debates in the Google group mailing list ("Intent to Prototype: Web environment integrity API") much more interesting, but didn't hot link the latter in the OP post to limit brigading. Although that mail list archive is made publicly accessable.

I think the comment that the_lego is replying to also highlights the false equivalency of calling the anti-WEI crowd as criminals, as was not a good look for Google.

They have apologized for using the word criminals & bullies in a broader context and I appreciate that. However, the initial part of the comment is very telling of how they view those who oppose.

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36916991

Related:

• Is Web Environment Integrity a risk to the accessibility of the Internet?
  • https://programming.dev/post/831937
• Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
  • https://programming.dev/post/916235
• Mozilla opposes Web Integrity API proposal
  • https://programming.dev/post/929260

Cool! Could you share that link with the !cobol@programming.dev community?

I think this is what OP is referring to:

• https://gamerant.com/celeste-coyote-time-mechanic-platforming-impact-hidden-mechanics/
• https://youtu.be/bJOpkFIEwCA?t=43

This proposed standard raises my concerns about the ability to continue using the public internet with user-preferred hardware/software and custom extensions, and does not instill my confidence in maintaining the level of freedom and accessibility users currently enjoy:

Some examples of scenarios where users depend on client trust include:

• Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they're human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.

What information is in the signed attestation?

The proposal calls for at least the following information in the signed attestation:

• The attester's identity, for example, "Google Play".
• A verdict saying whether the attester considers the device trustworthy.

How does this affect browser modifications and extensions?

Web Environment Integrity attests the legitimacy of the underlying hardware and software stack, it does not restrict the indicated application’s functionality: E.g. if the browser allows extensions, the user may use extensions; if a browser is modified, the modified browser can still request Web Environment Integrity attestation.

Is there a GitHub ticket to track this issue?
The current Lemmy workaround sounds non-optimal.