People are still using that?

Think about it - what kind of work does involve "reliable infra" today?

Instead of knowing one Linux system well and maintaining multiple servers in different data centers with different providers you now have the stupid overhead of multiple cloud infra providers with all their lockin-pitfalls and incompatible specialities.

The promises of cloud have not been delivered.

It is all fake.

a lot of pretty big business (including the cloud providers themselves) run very successful services on cloud servers. I don't see how it's fake.

Provide facts and sources or be tagged forever.

> 3. Zero vendor lock-in

This is wrong. For basic features that are absolutely needed for a real-life app you will need the "Pro" hasura license.

No you don't.

This statement can not be left on HN without contradiction. It says more about your dev experience than about Drupal.

Drupal is still horrible. They did not learn from the security issues of the past, they still put lots of php files into document_root, just to mention two basic things.

They are doing it wrong in many ways, and there is no hope the "community" will ever learn, because people with competence already moved away long time ago.

Let a developer with some experience with different languages and frameworks (Java, Ruby, Python, Elixir) - not some single-eyed PHP-only beginner - work for one day with Drupal and then ask her what she thinks about it.

Question about your product: besides "gaming the system with creating fake or duplicated + slightly modified content" what is the value of this?

Question about you: did you ever consider using your skills to do something that will help humanity to solve actual problems we are facing?

Proposal: let this grow as a honeypot and publish a list of your customers after some while, so we can spot the "quality journalists" - that will be fun!

TODO for everybody: integrate fake news detector from sites like this into ublock-origin. Make them invisible.

In a world where disinformation and clickbait journalism is prevalent, we want to allow content creators to have that same rapid pace (pace of how quickly they make content) but make sure it’s factual/credible and demonstrates value.

Here's how we do this: Suppose a journalist as X amount of time to create an article (we're talking about lower-tier/repetitive journalism, which consists of a majority of journalism) They have two options:

1. Write some relatively bogus article to drive clicks

2. We write a majority of their article within seconds and they spend the X amount of time editing our article/regenerating it. We're planning on implementing fact-checking algos in end so after they're done editing, we ensure the content is legit.

We don't want to replace journalism. We just want to automate lower tier journalism (clickbait, repetitive sports articles) and hope they utilize their time ensuring the content is substantive to their audience.

You help people pollute the web. Got it.

> (we're talking about lower-tier/repetitive journalism, which consists of a majority of journalism)

The majority of content farms maybe. The majority of journalism is interviews, local events, editorial pieces, analysis, obituaries, event listings, etc. I work with dozens of news organizations and you do not seem to fully understand how a legitimate news business is run. Your tech may be interesting but in my opinion your tool is more harmful to journalism than it is helpful.

Here's how I'm going to use your technology:

I am going to resell it to small businesses so that they can publish a neverending stream of nonsense keyword-laden articles to improve their SEO. Hotels, restaurants, medical practices. Anyone with cash really.

That's what this is going to be used for.

That only holds up if X remains constant. Option #1 is already considered acceptable by these low-quality sites, so why wouldn't they instead choose:

3. Automatically write a relatively bogus article to drive clicks.

For a business model that already works for Option 1, Option 3 is the same thing with less overhead.

I do see how this can greatly enable propaganda / fake-news creation however. Time spent editing an article doesn't inherently mean time spent making it more accurate or reality-based; it can just as easily mean time spent twisting words to imply a propaganda goal. This may not be your goal, but it's an inevitable consequence of the technology.

Makes a lot of sense, I do hope you succeed.

Also, I work in the academia, something like this would be very helpful also in that area.

Thanks for the support! You can always email us at bigbird@bigbird.dev if you'd like to know more.

"Our secret telemetry dataset gives us reason to believe that the cars produced by us are not safe."

Would a statement like this be a surprise for you?

Only because you made it up to spread FUD. Good job.

Evidence, please.

Is that a fork of openPGP or some other product that is based on the same specs? I could not find anything meaningful for openGPG.

That's because it doesn't have open in its name, it's called GPG or GnuPG.

It's another product based on the same specs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard

OpenPGP is not a product, it's a standard.

Maybe you're thinking of https://sequoia-pgp.org/ or https://neopg.io/ ?

It seems like you want to suggest that Matrix is not secure - as others pointed out already the bug that was reported about has nothing to do with matrix and was fixed quickly.

Also you do not seem to understand that bugs and resulting security problems are something that happen every day - and get fixed quickly, usually, after discovery. This is what they mean when domain experts say things like "security is a process".

Also here we see a perfect example of why you want to use open source software for all governmental software: after a bug was found your admins can see the code changes and understand, if the bug still exists or not. Even more, only with open source software your admins and developers can read the code and search for bugs, too! This is what makes open source software a very good idea!

You are welcome to the world of free and open software, and after some reading about the basic principles I am sure you will understand why open source software is used by so many companies and organizations around the world.

BTW re the website you pointed to: I see a very annoying, totally absurd cookie dialog that makes me click at least five times and still does not give me a choice to not accept cookies at all. Please do not link to that website until they wake up and stop insulting visitors with this UI nightmare and learned that nobody needs to set cookies to publish content. Also this is not a website a pro developer would ever read or point to - always prefer to point to the primary source of information.

> Thank the French for that, who are the main reason behind the EU legislation about Cookies.

This again is wrong. The problem originated by publishers who track users and disrespect their privacy for many years.

The regulation that happened after a very long time of people urging governments to do something about that, makes this initial problem better visible.

Still it is important to understand: no cookies are needed at all for publishing content.

The cookie situation has been exacerbated exactly because of the cookie law. Previously I could just block cookies client-side (like any sane user avoiding cookies would) and every site worked just fine. However, after the cookie regulation, numerous sites just straight up started to block access _unless_ you accept their cookies.

Cookie regulation is one of the best examples of how governments meddling into tech has backfired.

It would have been a much better idea to launch a public awareness campaign about cookies and their client-side blocking, or even provide patches to open source browsers to have a better UX for blocking cookies by default. The only regulation that should have been passed (if any), would have been to allow access (to static content) despite blocking of cookies client-side.

This is wrong information.

Publishers can show a cookie-free site to all visitors and offer a cookie opt-in for some kind of added value, e.g. "more information for membership".

There is no governmental force pushing anybody to produce a website that diplays a "cookie dialog" even before you see what that site is about or if you like it. You are producing a false and absurd story of "governments meddling into tech produces cookie dialogs".

What I was getting at was that while yes, publishers can show a cookie-free site, many of them stopped doing exactly that. This started happening around the time the cookie regulation was implemented.

Had the regulation at least forbade this behavior, we most likely wouldn't be in this situation.

However, thinking back, I guess it's fair to say that publishers might have implemented this blocking behavior if the governments would only have done a public awareness campaign. In this case, only a minimum set of regulations (ban force acceptance of cookies for static content) would suffice as well.

But it is part of the Nike history and should have been mentioned. It is disgusting to read that kind of fanboy publication, deeply bowing before a company that helped to construct the modern international slavery system.

There’s nothing wrong with looking at something and appreciating a particular trait, or a particular victory that was achieved without having to apologize for every bad thing that the same person or company has ever done.

I think that this is true as long as the thing that you are appreciating itself was being done for good and noble purposes, or not in furtherance of a greater evil.

So you can look at something about China, or something about George Washington, or something about Apple/Nike/Google, and recount that history in full appreciation of the magic that went into succeeding in that moment.

I think if every time you say something good about someone/something you’re supposed to disclaim everything terrible, you’ll have a hell of a lot of disclaiming to do.

Personally, it’s a great example of amazing sales and how to build a brand.

There’s no reason why brands today couldn’t learn from Nike’s sales/branding story without having to emulate their manufacturing sins.

Yeah, every time there's an article about the United States ever, we should mention the Trail of Tears. That'll help.