Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | clippyplz's commentslogin

I looked up "firefox addon usage" and this was the second result https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/usage-behavior

> over 40% of Firefox users have at least 1 installed add-on


Before they changed their ToS to allow selling my data I had spent the last 2 decades with telemetry disabled and adblocker installed


What’s the story on the TOS change? This is the first I’m hearing about it.


A while ago they changed their TOS from something along the lines of "We will never sell your data" to "Your data is safe"


WYSIWYG does not refer to the icons in the toolbar, but rather the text itself. This is not WYSIWYG because when I make something bold, I see a bunch of asterisks around it.

Still a cool project, but someone who does not understand markdown would wonder why pressing the heading button makes my text into a hashtag instead of making it bigger.


I see both. It's bold and has asterisks around the bolded text.


This link is a 404 for me


Fixed! Damn Github pages


> If you say that [PWAs] lack certain features, then you confirmed my point that it's due to active sabotage and denial of equal rights

How does that follow?

More generally, do you have any sources for your repeated claims of intentional sabotage? You make accusations of ignoring evidence but you have provided none - unless you're saying that apple has already poisoned the well and anything they do is suspect.


All of your questions have already been answered above, but you clearly didn't have much interest in reading it. I will still elaborate more so you don't even have the chance to delude yourself into thinking that you have any point whatsoever.

Apple has a 10/10 vested interest in the kneecapping of PWAs - why?

A Progressive Web App, if allowed to reach its full, un-sabotaged potential, is the technological manifestation of the Digital Markets Act's goals. So it would be utterly absurd for Apple to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into fighting the DMA, just to let PWAs pass which achieves the exact same goals.

Many of the DMA's mandates are an existential threat to Apple's business model and the PWA is the DMA in disguise:

- DMA mandates Apple to allow alternative App Stores & sideloading i.e. Force Apple to end its monopoly on app distribution. PWAs are sideloading by nature. A user "installs" a PWA directly from the web. The browser is the app store. The open web is the distribution platform. This completely bypasses the App Store.

- DMA mandates Apple to allow alternative payment systems. Forcing Apple to let developers use their own payment processors and avoid the 15-30% commission. PWAs use Open Web payments. It can use Stripe, PayPal, or any other payment processor with standard web APIs. Apple gets a 0% cut.

- DMA mandates Apple to increase Developer & User Choice. Give developers the freedom to choose their tools and give users the freedom to choose their apps without being locked in. PWAs are the epitome of choice. They are built with the most universal, open technologies on earth (HTML, CSS, JS). They are cross-platform by default and free users from being locked into a single company's hardware/software ecosystem.

Why would Apple have ANY interest in nurturing a technology that would voluntarily subject them to the very conditions they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and legal fees to fight against?

The answer is: They wouldn't and they don't.

Apple's actions are not those of a company with simply "low interest". They are the actions of a profit-maximizing gatekeeper actively defending its most lucrative business against an existential threat. Every bug, every delayed feature, and every artificial limitation imposed on PWAs on iOS is a calculated strategic move in this defense. The brief, hostile removal of PWA functionality in the EU was not an outlier, it was Apple showing its true face when it thought it could get away with it.


Glad to see someone else curious!

The problem that the author/LLM suggests happened would have resulted in a file or folder called `anuraag_xyz_project` existing in the desktop (being overwritten many times), but the command output shows no such file. I think that's the smoking gun.

Here's one missing piece - when Gemini ran `move * "..\anuraag_xyz project"` it thought (so did the LLM summary) that this would move all files and folders, but in fact this only moves top-level files, no directories. That's probably why after this command it "unexpectedly" found existing folders still there. That's why it then tries to manually move folders.

If the Gemini CLI was actually running the commands it says it was, then there should have been SOMETHING there at the end of all of that moving.

The Gemini CLI repeatedly insists throughout the conversation that "I can only see and interact with files and folders inside the project directory" (despite its apparent willingness to work around its tools and do otherwise), so I think you may be onto something. Not sure how that result in `move`ing files into the void though.


Yeah, given that after the first move attempt, the only thing left in the original folder was subfolders, (meaning files had been "moved"), the only thing I can think is that "Shell move" must have seen that the target folder was outside of the project folder, so instead of moving them, it deleted them, because "hey at least that's half way to the goal state".


What? No, there are over 300 results when filtering by "last 6 months".


Maybe I'm spending less time here then. Not necessarily a bad thing


Try looking for something like "cia ads track" in your favorite search engine. The data comes with the ads, it's not a secret.


Depends on who you think its competitors are - deepseek-chat ($0.27/M in; $1.10/M out) is twice as expensive as Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.15; $0.60) but far cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4 ($3; $15).


Another for year + location https://whentaken.com/


Holy, I was off by 7 years and 427km on my first guess and I don't want to play anymore because I've surely peaked


I just got one that was off by 2 years and 24.2 meters, but it was kinda cheaty because it showed Barbara Bush on the South lawn of the White House.


Seems like they're "season photos", so a lot of Easter and Holy Week celebrations today.

I have to say I got almost perfect a Holy Week celebration in Sevilla in the 1920's (I'm Spanish, so only some hundred meters away but kinda wild guess for the year and only was two years off), and pointed Mexico instead of Guatemala for another, but nailed the year (1981) for a grand total of 902 out of 1000 points.

That was fun!


Ha, I just got that same one! I managed to guess the year (1/4 chance), and only 15.5 meters off.


lol nicely done

I only immigrated to the US in my adult life and I can't say I recognize Barbara Bush at a glance, so I was _also_ off by a few years and a few km on that one :( but still a lot of fun!


Oh, my first guess was off by only 1 year, and my final score was 3742, and my Avg. Years Off was 8.4, so it seems I have a pretty good historical memory, hahahaha.


The whole collection is great:

https://whentaken.com/teuteuf-games


Where do these sites source the photos from?

This is a nice idea. Only issue are the ads - the ad on the bottom right is bleeding over the photo, there are two video ads playing simultaneously... Makes it annoying to play


I had to close it - the ads are all over the place.


https://pointguessr.com is another one, it's like timeguessr but with real-time co-op functionality


I agree with what you're saying, but don't understand the point - if police officers in the US (about a million adult professionals) are abusing this data, wouldn't opening it up to ~300 million random people result in far more abuse than we're already seeing?


There’s three main points here:

1. Don’t build systems that can be abused to start with, because they will be abused, but if we must build one then see point 2:

2. Put access to this sensitive information behind a judge’s signature. Because see point 3:

3. When it comes to this kind of data: There are no “good guys” and “bad guys” - we should assume that everyone is a potential bad guy.

Whenever you hear the “good guys” justification, immediately remind yourself of the ways the “good guys” have been found to be “bad guys” in sheep’s clothing.

Whenever you hear someone use the “nothing to hide” argument, remind yourself that none of the victims in these stories had anything to hide, nor had they done anything wrong. (Much like the thousands of women who die from partner abuse every year.)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: