How do you avoid interaction if it’s being done automatically by your machine when you open up a print dialog, and if malicious servers can use the same names as legit printers?

Why do you assume they haven’t warned Mozilla in advance?

Also, Mozilla was fully aware that what they were doing is in breach of GDPR. I find it extremely hard to believe that the makers of Firefox are not fully familiarized with it by now.

Last but not least Mozilla is doing this for financial gain. It’s selling pur data to advertisers. Why should we excuse it? It’s a very hostile act.

If Mozilla has hit rock bottom and has been reduced to selling our data to survive then that’s that. We’ll find another way and another FOSS browser. Accepting it is not an option.

So what, are we giving Mozilla a free pass to do anything now? Is the new bar “not quite as shitty as Google”?

Exactly.

The reason most companies decide to contribute to FOSS is because it’s a lot more efficient to fix bugs and add/influence features upstream than to do it at your end of the code independently of everybody else.

I use whatever online storage service I want because you can add your own encryption layer so you only sync encrypted files. rclone supports lots of services and will also encrypt files for you.

You don’t have to install drivers or CUPS on client devices. Linux and Android support IPP out of the box. Just make sure your CUPS on the server is multicasting to the LAN.

You may need to install Avahi on the server if it’s not already (that’s what does the actual multicasting). The printer(s) should then auto magically appear in the print dialogs on apps on Linux clients and in the printer service on Android.

On Linux it may take a few seconds to appear after you turn it on and may not appear when it’s off. On Android it shows up anyways as long as the CUPS server is on.

From what I understand OP’s images aren’t the same image, just very similar.

Any PC can do that, it’s called “status after power off” or something like that.

Isn’t it fourth?

Mozilla has already shipped strict privacy mode by default in recent versions of Firefox so they’re already a leg up on this.

Google is currently trying to transition people to its own proprietary method of tracking (where the browser itself tracks you) so they would love it if third party cookies were no longer usable for that.

Mozilla has also added a direct tracking feature (anonimized) to Firefox btw. Not sure what their agenda is.

Websites are irrelevant, if third party cookies stop working in major browsers there’s no point in setting them anymore, they’ll be ignored.

Bayesian filters are statistical, they have nothing to do with machine learning.

You should consider if you really want to integrate your application super tightly with the HTTP protocol.

Will it always be used exclusively over a REST-ful HTTP API that you control, and it has exactly one hop to the client, or passes through hops that can be trusted to never alter the HTTP metadata significantly? In that case you can afford to make HTTP codes semantically relevant for your app.

But maybe you need to pass data through multiple different types of layers and different mechanisms (socket protocols, pub-sub, file storage etc.) In that case you want all your semantics to be independent from any form of transport.

It’s a perfectly fine way of doing things as long as it’s consistent and the spec is clear.

HTTP is a transport layer. You don’t have to use its codes for your application layer. It’s often done that way but it’s not the only way.

In the example above the transport layer is saying “OK I’ve delivered your output” which is technically correct. It’s not concerned with logical errors inside what it was transporting, just with the delivery itself.

If any client app is blindly converting body to JSON without checking (at the very least) content type and size, they deserve what they get.

If you want to make it part of your API spec to always return JSON that’s one thing, but don’t do it to make up for poorly written clients. There’s no end of ways in which clients can fail. Sticking to a clear spec is the only way to preserve your sanity.

It’s impossible to tell how meaningful Backblaze’s numbers are because we don’t know the global failure rate for each model they test, so we can’t calculate the statistical significance. Also there are other factors involved like the age of the drives and the type of workload they were used for.

buying more reliable devices can definitely save you time and headache in the future by having to deal with failures less frequently.

That’s a recipe for sorrow. Don’t waste time on “reliability” research, just plan for failure. All HDDs fail. Assume they will and backup or replicate your data.

Any difference you personally experience between the three big brands is meaningless. For any failed HDD you have there’s going to be another person who swears by them and has had five of them running for 10 years without a hitch.

But whatever’s cheaper in your area and stop worrying. Your reliability should be assured by backups anyway not by betting on a single drive. Any drive can fail.

For home setup you don’t care because you should have either redundancy or backup (preferably both).

So that typically means buying the cheapest HDD that’s new and from one of the established brands (Seagate, Western Digital, Toshiba) that’s in the correct size for your needs, and you can afford to buy it at least twice (for the aforementioned backups or redundancy), or even thrice, and replace as soon as needed.

In other words there’s no need to speculate on how long an HDD will last, you simply replace it when needed.

Please also note that HDDs over 10 TB are starting to get increasingly replaced with enterprise models which run hotter and make more noise.

I doubt they intend to mine it. For the Russian state is easier to acquire Bitcoin by hacking wallets than mining, and the plebs can’t afford the electricity.

Trading is trading and they’d be risking sanctions whether they take payment with Swift or Bitcoin.

This is not a new problem, .internal is just a new gimmick but people have been using .lan and whatnot for ages.

Certificates are a web-specific problem but there’s more to intranets than HTTPS. All devices on my network get a .lan name but not all of them run a web app.