Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Sorry, I didn’t realise it was paywalled. It didn’t prompt me to pay when I opened it. It’s not a source I usually use, but I couldn’t find an alternative unless from much less reputable sites.

I think the law would only apply above a certain number of monthly users, so small platforms are safe from it for now.

That one works. Thanks!

I hadn’t heard of this before, so I tried a few public instances listed on their GitHub repo. They’re all throwing a json error. Do you have a link that works for you?

Archive.is works by saving snapshots of pages, unlike 12ft, which just stripped the paywall on the fly. With very new pages, a snaptshot might not be saved yet. In that case, go to the home page and use the box to ask to make a new snapshot now. It will take a minute and then you should see it.

There is a selfhosted tool called 13ft which does exactly that. But in my experience, there are paywalls that it doesn’t succeed to get around but 12ft.io could.

In particular, Notion employees are saying that they are not listening to audio from your microphone, but just checking whether other processes in the system are using the microphone. There is a setting to disable this entirely.

Copy-pasting from the thread:

1. Notion records audio only during your use of the Meeting Notes feature. Here are the docs: https://www.notion.com/help/ai-meeting-notes

2. Notion desktop app has notifications about meetings that ask you if you want to use Meeting Notes, it recognizes this by detecting that your microphone is on (i.e. it does not listen to audio coming from your microphone). This feature is a setting in preferences btw, under Notifications > Desktop meeting detection notification.

source: I work for Notion

The Notion desktop app will observe if there is a process running on your computer that is actively using your microphone, such as Zoom.

I’m using the latest version of the app and I don’t see this setting. I’ve also never seen these meeting notifications. It’s possible that you only get them if you have AI features enabled in your workspace, which I don’t. (I read a while ago that you can email support to ask them to disable it. I wrote a short email, and they replied within a day that it had been done, no questions or push-back.)

But she added: “We know a lot of that information is out there anyway, but people will be worried”

The fact that others have insecure systems is not an excuse for keeping one yourself.

Yeah, I think it might be some kind of rate limiting. In another thread, it happened to someone else after batch-downloading videos with yt-dlp, which also prevented yt-dlp from downloading. Then it was back to normal (no sign in required) a few hours later.

all you have to do is circumvent the security settings in your browser and suppress warning messages

I think this is a very important point that too few people are raising and it’s getting buried under the spam of “switch to Firefox” messages. Yes, switching to Firefox is an option. But clearly some people don’t want to do it, and we give them these workarounds without saying what they really do and without highlighting that they are potentially dangerous. You use your browser for a large part of your interaction with your computer, so any downgrade in security is going to be significant. To me, the short-term implications of this are far more important than the longstanding Chrome-vs-Firefox discussion.

If you don’t want a GUI, dockcheck is an easy way to update many containers at once from the CLI.

Are you using Kitchenowl for storing recipes? If so, what’s your experience with it?

I’ve tried Tandoor, the common suggestion for recipe management, but I’ve found it too clunky to add recipes to. I like the concept, but it would take a long time to move all my recipes into the specific format they use, and the web UI does not make things easier.

This is the normal level of quality you can expect from Newsweek, unfortunately.

It seems the users are explicitly making the posts public. I know it’s cool to hate on Meta, but the issue here seems to be more that some people don’t understand the consequences of making public posts on the Internet.

Sure, I get that. The issue is that as soon as you introduce the ability to install apps from outside the App Store, it becomes possible to trick unsuspecting users into clicking buttons they don’t understand. By designing a web page to look like an actual Apple page, a malicious party could convince users to “opt in” to outside sources, in a similar way in which phishing websites harvest users’ online banking credentials. Currently, this kind of attack is entirely impossible on iPhone.

I think that’s exactly the problem. The real user benefit will be very small, but in order to enable those changes, functionality will be implemented on everyone’s phones to support sideloading. In my eyes, this increseas the attack surface against iPhones. Time and time again alt stores have been used to distribute fake apps and malware on Android, and the victims are often those users who haven’t asked for sideloading and are unlikely to use it intentionally.

Yes, maybe this will enable an F-droid equivalent on iPhone and it will be great to have direct access to open-source apps. But is this niche addition worth potentially reducing the security of all iPhones? I’m not convinced.