> For the same reason I'm not using Chrome, which intentionally kneecaps browser history sync when sync encryption is enabled, effectively forcing users to choose between non-synced history and privacy, when e.g. Firefox manages to do encrypted sync just fine.
This is novel to me - what's the kneecap specifically? How do you only kinda sync browser history??
Chrome only syncs "typed URL" (i.e. everything you enter in the address bar/"omnibox") website visits when your profile is encrypted, as far as I remember. "True" history sync is somehow tied to Google's generic "activity sync", which only exists unencrypted.
For me, this completely defeats the point of having history sync in the first place, so this particular change was what made me switch browsers several years ago.
Whataboutism (doesn't matter if another entity does it - if it's wrong, then pointing out another entity doing it is fallacious), redirection, and false dichotomy (you can care about the US and China doing it - for all you know the parent poster was in the EU and does care about both).
Nobody mentioned the US upstream of your comment until you did. This is obvious propaganda - one of the classic maneuvers in the PRC influence playbook is, when called out on anything, to try to implement whataboutism with the United States (even if it's not relevant, like here, which is equally sad and funny).
What OP's saying is fundamentally true though? Unfortunately most people don't really care about privacy, regardless of whether it's going to an American company or a Chinese one.
Not exactly. Most US companies have a presence in Europe and so give at least an attempt to obey European laws. While the laws are different and not as strong, the US has privacy laws in place that will protect you. China might have some of those same laws - but they don't apply to the government at all (the US makes some attempt to have laws apply to the government)
That doesn't mean you should be happy with data in America, but China is worse.
Last I knew Opera still had a decent amount of engineering staff in Poland, and still had some in Sweden, both in the EU, plus still has some amount of staff in Norway, not in the EU but definitely in Europe.
That’s not to say their privacy story is fantastic, but they very much still have European operations.
> [T]he US has privacy laws in place that will protect you [...] (the US makes some attempt to have laws apply to the government)
I believe the US stance is that nobody outside the US is entitled to court relief against the US government regarding their privacy, and nobody outside the US and EU is entitled to any relief at all, even from the executive (the “Data Protection Review Court” non-court, formerly the “Privacy Shield Ombudsperson”). In the EU, there are some protections in some countries but for example the GDPR specifically does not apply to governments.
I mean, the Chinese government is worse on this, but the US is nevertheless really bad and a number of EU countries also suck to a remarkable extent. Until the US press starts dropping the “of Americans” from their latest surprised-Pikachu headlines on “mass government surveillance of Americans”, I’m unconvinced the situation will improve.
Windows (including Notepad and Explorer), too. I think ~Office~ ~Office 365~ ~Microsoft 365~ Copilot 365 is still technically useful despite the insane branding and licensing and AI slop features, but I doubt it'll last much longer.
> a lot of those uncertainty markers aren't fluff, they're essential to honest, accurate communication.
> Similarly, many times when you say a variation on "I know you're the expert on the codebase" or whatever, that's because it's true and important. Something I think is a problem, which this article wants me to phrase as a short, plain declaration, might actually just be a misunderstanding on my part.
This is not what the article says. The author is not advocating for removal of relevant information (including uncertainty markers and that which you describe as "true and important") - only information that is not relevant, such as "I'm not sure if I'm missing something here and sorry if this is a dumb question but" that is an example in the post.
And, if the information may be relevant, the author would ask you to include it - concisely, without fluff.
The main thing that Crocker's Rules are trying to cut out (in a LIMITED SPECIFIC OPT-IN BASIS) is specifically irrelevant information due to social graces/fear of offense. If it could be useful, the author (and Crocker) would have you include it.
Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away.
If you're saying the actual proper behavior is a middle ground: I agree! But that's not what the article is saying. (At least, not clearly, which would be its own irony.)
> Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away.
Right, I think the examples aren't the best. But, around the examples, look at what the author is advocating for:
> to skip social cushioning
> "your feelings about how I might receive this..."
> bears responsibility for their own emotional reaction to its content
> When you spend the first third of your message establishing that you are a nice person who means well
...etc. They're pretty clearly emphasizing the emotional content of messages, rather than informational content.
Then they explicitly say that the intent is to provide relevant information:
> You can document contributing factors if they are actually actionable, meaning if there is something structural that needs to change, name it specifically and attach a proposed fix to it.
...and then separate that from emotions:
> But confessing your emotional state and your reasoning process and your extenuating circumstances is not documentation, it is self-absolution
Yes, I agree that the author probably should have been a bit more clear, because people can get upset when it comes to workplace politics/communication, and clarity never hurts. But I'm pretty sure that the intent is what you'd want it to be.
I would love to see a modern competitive game with optional anticheat that, when enabled, allows you to queue for a separate matchmaking pool that is exclusive to other anticheat users. For players in the no-anticheat pool, there could be "community moderation" that anti-anticheat players advocate for.
It'd be really interesting to see what would happen - for instance, what fraction of players would pick each pool during the first few weeks after launch, and then how many of them would switch after? What about players who joined a few months or a year after launch?
Unfortunately, pretty much the only company that could make this work is Valve, because they're the only one who actually cares for players and is big enough that they could gather meaningful data. And I don't think that even Valve will see enough value in this to dedicate the substantial resources it'd take to try to implement.
> I would love to see a modern competitive game with optional anticheat that, when enabled, allows you to queue for a separate matchmaking pool that is exclusive to other anticheat users. For players in the no-anticheat pool, there could be "community moderation" that anti-anticheat players advocate for.
This is roughly what Valve does for CS2. But, as far as I understand, it's not very effective and unfortunately still results in higher cheating rates than e.g. Valorant.
Huh. When you say that "it's not very effective" do you mean the segmentation between the pools, or the actual anticheat isn't very good? (I'm assuming the latter - I've heard that VAC is pretty bad as far as anticheat goes)
Oh sorry - I misread your suggestion! I thought you were talking about separate matchmaking logic for known cheaters, but you're asking about opt-in matchmaking for those willing to use invasive anticheat.
The example still kind of applies. In the CS world, serious players use Faceit for matchmaking, which requires you to install a kernel-level anticheat. This is basically what you're suggesting, but operated by a 3rd party.
Hmm, I guess that since VAC is not a kernel-level anticheat, the comparison between it and Faceit for CS is pretty close to my idea. Thanks for pointing that out.
VAC is actually an AI based anticheat. I guess IF (a big if) it ever gets good enough it will be better than any kernel level AC, because it analyzes the gameplay, not the inputs, meaning a DMA cheat would also be caught.
"VAC" is a catch-all term for all of Valve's anti-cheating mechanisms.
The primary one is a standard user-mode software module, that does traditional scanning.
The AI mechanism you're referring to is these days referred to as "VAC Live" (previously, VACNet). The primary game it is deployed on is Counter-Strike 2. From what we understand, it is a very game-dependent stack, so it is not universally deploy-able.
I don't think that's what VAC is. I think VAC just looks for known cheat patterns in memory and such, and if it finds indisputable proof of cheating it marks a player for banning in the next wave. Maybe there is some ML involved in finding these patterns but I think it's very strictly controlled by humans to prevent fase positives. That's why VAC bans are irreversible, false positives are supposed to be impossible.
Valve has some AI detection stuff for CS2, but it’s remarkably ineffective. VAC itself delivers small DLLs that get manual mapped by Steam service, do some analysis and send that to Valve (at least to the best of my knowledge, there may be more logic implemented in Valve’s games or in Steam/Steam service).
Wait, so the "community alternative" is also kernel-level anticheat? I think that's different from what I'm proposing - I'm suggesting a comparison between an anticheat and no anticheat (with community policing of lobbies and handing out of penalties).
It was terrible as it required the community to conclude beyond reasonable doubt the suspect was cheating, and cheats today are sophisticated enough to make that conclusion very difficult to make
Because their (or their friend's) computer can't run the anticheat, but they're interested in playing with friends? My sister and mom wanted me to play Valorant with them a free years back, but apparently it needs kernel anticheat, so I just can't run it. I'm not going to buy a new computer for a game.
And the way community policing worked in the past is that the "police" (refs) could just kick or ban you. They don't need a trial system if the community doesn't want that.
> Why would a player knowingly choose to play on matchmaking that is advertising no anti-cheat?
I guess I didn't exactly make that clear...
A few of the arguments advanced by the "anti-anticheat" crowd that inevitably pops up in these threads are "anticheat is ineffective so there's no point to using it" and "anticheat is immoral because players aren't given a choice to use it or not and most of them would choose to not use it".
I don't believe that either of these are true (and given the choice I would almost never pick the no-anticheat queue), but there's not a lot of good high-quality data to back that up. Hence, the proposal for a dual-queue system to try to gather that data.
Putting in the community review of the no-anticheat pool is just to head off the inevitable goalpost-moving of "well of course no system would be worse than a crappy system (anticheat), you need to compare the best available alternative (community moderation)".
> Why would a player knowingly choose to play on matchmaking that is advertising no anti-cheat?
My understanding of the proposal is that it advertises no invasive anticheat (meaning mostly rootkit/kernel anticheat). So, the value proposition is anyone who doesn't want a rootkit on their computer. This could be due to anything from security concerns to desiring (more) meaningful ownership of one's devices.
It might be, although trust factor has a major outcome of match quality.
I have over 10,000 hours in the game, majority played on official servers with quite a low % of matches impacted by cheaters. The match quality does deteriorate with Premier rating. I noticed a decent jump in cheaters after about 25k rating, although the number is not as much as people like to make it out to be.
> pretty much the only company that could make this work is Valve
at least when focusing on counter-strike (CSGO/CS2), they've tried tons of ways to segregate the player base in terms of trustworthy vs not.
from "anti-cheat" vs not, verifying users using phones, paying vs not, you name it.
none of their initiatives managed to ward off the bad actors from the "secured" version. does not give me the confidence that they could make a system work effectively, but something that can work cross-platform, perhaps.
It exists, it's called FACEIT (for CS, specifically). Anyone who seriously cares about the game at a high level is pretty much exclusively playing there.
Community moderation simply doesn't work at scale for anticheat - in level of effort required, root cause detection, and accuracy/reliability.
I support this idea. Personally, I do not really care about cheating in video games. If some is cheating in a video game, I can just turn it off, go outside, and take deep breath of fresh air and touch some grass.
I rather play with cheaters here and there than install some kernel level malware on machine just to make sure EA, Activision, et al can keep raking in money hand over fist.
Or better yet, I can just play on console where there is no cheating that I have ever seen.
I can't be an anarchist because I don't believe anarchy exists. In every group of humans, power structures and hierarchies form spontaneously from normal social interaction. Even if you abolished all forms of government, they would simply reform. A state of anarchy is impossible.
> Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law out of all other freedom struggles.
Civil disobedience is wrong. Society has established ways to change the rules. Breaking rules instead of changing them is disrespectful to the society that has been built. Just because you quote someone, that does not mean what they are advocating for is just.
Society is wrong. It allows trillion dollar corporations to simply buy the laws that they want to impose on you while conveniently leaving loophopes for themselves. Why the hell would you want to "change" this rigged system through the system? That's mind boggling.
There is absolutely no reason at all to even so much as recognize these laws as legitimate. Society can go to hell if it thinks otherwise. They were supposed to be working for us, not the corporations. Since they aren't, we simply revoke their power over us. It really is that easy.
Power isn't something you have, it's loaned out to you, and it can be revoked. People give you power because they believe you'll act in their best interests and solve their problems for them. Once it becomes clear that's not happening, there is absolutely no reason at all to defer to some corrupt "authorities" who are doing nothing but enriching themselves at our expense.
> Society is wrong. It allows trillion dollar corporations to simply buy the laws that they want to impose on you while conveniently leaving loophopes for themselves. Why the hell would you want to "change" this rigged system through the system? That's mind boggling.
So much for "Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them."[1] - you're just here to engage in propaganda.
(propaganda that, for the future record, isn't even true - corporations do not get votes and do not get to "buy the laws they want")
>Why the hell would you want to "change" this rigged system through the system? That's mind boggling.
The current system allows for changing it if you have enough support. People who try to go around it because they do not have the needed support. If society was truly wrong we could easily dissolve it.
The book of Isaiah tells us to denounce unjust law. And the book of Matthew tells us to recognize Caesar’s secular authority. Anarchism is not the only explanation.
OK, so then you think the entire system is corrupt, and you should reform/replace it.
Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance.
Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust), or you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite - you don't really believe that the system is unjust, you're just using that as an excuse to selectively ignore laws you disagree with.
> Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust) [...]
I believe the system is just. That does not change in the presence of those unjust rules that you listed above, because those laws can be changed and are changed regularly, and because they're not egregious enough to constitute a failure of the system.
I understood you perfectly, but you didn't understand me. You're trying to create a false binary between "follow every law as written, until it gets changed" and "drastic action." Nobody wants to take drastic action, so (you say) we should follow the laws.
You seem to agree that there are unjust laws, but you don't realize the scope of the problem. There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed[0]. A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely, and so under your framing, everyone who disagrees with these laws and is not willing to follow them should take "drastic action."
In fact, there's no such binary. We live under a flawed system which contains unenforceable laws; we can just ignore those laws (which law enforcement already does) even if they are not changed, without needing to overthrow the system, emigrate, or whatever it is you meant to imply by "drastic action."
> There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed
Irrelevant.
> A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely
Can you point to laws that the majority of the population agrees are unjust that have existed since the beginning of the United States? If not, then there's zero unjust laws being perpetuated indefinitely, and so your conclusion is invalid by your own argument.
But, your own argument is wrong to begin with - the vast majority of humans will acknowledge a system as being essentially just even if it perpetuates some unjust/irrelevant/silly laws.
> In fact, there's no such binary.
That's true, you can "just ignore those laws" - and you'll be a hypocrite. The binary that I'm describing is clearly moral. I'm not saying that you physically must take one position or the other (as you're implying) - just that if you pick a value in the middle, you're a hypocrite, and your opinions are worthless, because you don't really believe them - you're just saying whatever is most convenient/advantageous for you at the moment.
>> There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed
>
> Irrelevant.
While I don't see why "unenforceable laws" is being mentioned so many times, given the plethora of other laws, I possit that since one of the prior comments was that enforcing them would be damageous, perhaps the intended wording is "unenforced laws" (as distinct from laws which cannot be enforced). If so, then I suggest their relevance.
>> A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely
>
> Can you point to laws that the majority of the population agrees are unjust that have existed since the beginning of the United States? If not, then there's zero unjust laws being perpetuated indefinitely, and so your conclusion is invalid by your own argument.
This the flaw that a law being perpetuated "indefinitely" (that is, without defined end) need not have existed since the beginning of the United States. Such law could have begun at any after, or indeed prior.
>> In fact, there's no such binary.
>
> That's true, you can "just ignore those laws" - and you'll be a hypocrite. The binary that I'm describing is clearly moral. I'm not saying that you physically must take one position or the other (as you're implying) - just that if you pick a value in the middle, you're a hypocrite, and your opinions are worthless, because you don't really believe them - you're just saying whatever is most convenient/advantageous for you at the moment.
This formulation is not constructive of enlightened debate. Kindly sheath your daggers and reply without invectives. As written, that might easily be read both as personal attack and casual dismisal of entire person. For what is a person who has no opinions?
Now, if I understand your position correctly, you believe that all laws must be obeyed, and that disobeying any law is immoral. Do we each believe that some laws are, whether past or present, immoral? In the case that a law can be immoral, I must hold that the resultant moral obligations are to disobey that law to the fullest and to endeavour to best ability for its most expedient and most moral removal.
This is a way to reform it. If nobody obeys a law, is it really illegal? It's more like a custom.
> Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance.
So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay.
> you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it
I don't have the power to do so. Also, people who try "drastic" actions are called terrorists.
> You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.
A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.
Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them. I'm just not willing to do it while being accused of bad faith and of having no reading comprehension.
Factually, you do either have bad reading comprehension or are operating in bad faith, because otherwise you could not have made this statement:
> So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay.
No need to respond. This is just documentation for future HN readers.
> They are demanding people have perfectly formed thoughts crafted in a way to give them just the information they wanted with no consideration for the process of thinking or consideration for the person speaking.
No, this is not what the author asks for. There's nothing in their article that says that people need to have "perfectly formed thoughts" or "only give them the information they asked for".
> It is selfish and impossible.
You fundamentally did not understand the point that they made (quite clearly). The thing that they are actually advocating for turns out to be neither.
> Communication is mind control. The point isn't the words, it is literally trying to get a person to do something.
Author also does not say that they think Crocker's Rules should be applied in all cases or that convincing someone of something is unnecessary.
> A second aspect here is that while communicating we are developing our thoughts. We need time to tease out our real intentions and filler conversation helps that.
Author is not (specifically) talking about filler conversation.
And on top of that it's really clear that they're primarily talking about digital communication - where filler conversation is unnecessary, unlike verbal communication.
> The writer asks for it, so I will be blunt.
Before being blunt, try being correct. And responding to the points that the author actually made instead of constructing a whole field of strawmen.
> Eh, I think the author is also exaggerating the problem significantly.
> “I hope this is okay to bring up and sorry for the long message, I just wanted to flag that I've been looking at the latency numbers and I'm not totally sure but it seems like there might be an issue with the caching layer?”
You're cherry-picking the most extreme example out of the bunch as a way of discrediting the argument. If you actual read the other examples given:
> The Slack message that starts with "Hey! Hope you had a great weekend :)"before asking a technical question or the PR comment that opens with "I'm not sure if I'm missing something here and sorry if this is a dumb question but" before raising a completely valid concern, or that incident text that spends two full paragraphs explaining that the author was sleep-deprived and had a lot on their plate and the monitoring tool had a weird quirk that they didn't know about and their lead had told them something ambiguous three weeks ago, before finally getting around to saying what actually broke and why.
There's no exaggeration going on here. This is the norm for the majority of Slack conversations I've seen online, including my own job - out of the hundreds of people I've interacted with at my job, well over half of them do this.
It absolutely does have relevance to Crocker's Rules. People exchange pleasantries because there's a cultural tendency to treat a direct, to-the-point message/request out of nowhere without the phatic rituals as off-putting and mildly offensive/insensitive.
This is pretty universally understood in most software engineering cultures in the West, which the author (and certainly the vast majority of HN) appear to reside in. It seems like you probably just don't exist in the same culture - but there's nothing wrong with that, you just have to be aware that that's how we do it.
Crocker's rules are about not burying honesty beneath politeness.
Someone can maybe squint real hard and see the word "Hey", in "Hey, the site is down" as politeness obstructing communication. But at that point, I hope the person seeing it this way operates under Crocker's Rules, because I would say they are a moron. There is a world of difference between basic human pleasantries and niceness that actually obscures communication.
Crocker's rules also explicitly state that others are allowed to disregard niceness, not that they are obligated to. Indeed, if you are offended or bothered by someone being polite, then under Crocker's rules, that would be your problem.
This is novel to me - what's the kneecap specifically? How do you only kinda sync browser history??
reply