Except that it makes it much harder for me to find the stories that I'm interested in reading. There are fewer on the page, there's less information about them on which to decide if they're worth my time, and they removed the tools that I used to help me find the good stuff.
Google News has become pretty worthless to me now -- or, to put it more charitably, it is now no better than any of the other aggregators that exist (and worse than some, such as Bing).
But I've just finished working around the problem: I've set up my own aggregator on my own server, and now I have all the features I need back again.
Who cares if something "looks dated"? What I care about is if the UI actually accomplishes the things a UI should. This redesign utterly fails on that count. Give me a usable dated-looking UI over this sort of thing anytime.
Sure. There have been numerous changes that I've had a very positive reaction to. The issue is whether it's change for the better or not. Change which doesn't improve anything is never a good thing.
Yeah, that's not what's happening. I have no problem with change when it improves things. The problem with this particular change is that it does the opposite of that.
In other words, the new layout is designed to increase ad views.
That makes sense. But, at least in my case, it achieved the opposite. Google News is not terribly useful to me now, so I stopped going there -- reducing my ad views to zero.
I've been trying to get used to it, but its flaws are so severe that it is no longer of any use to me whatsoever.
Aside from the insanely low information density now, omitting very important things like summaries, it's much more difficult to spot stories that I am actually interested in reading.
The layout is a disaster. The enormous fixed-size banner that eats up so much of the page, and the large right sidebar that insists on staying on the page when I reduce the window width to my preferred size (making it take up half of the window) are intolerable. And that card layout -- which I hate, but could probably learn to put up with.
Worst of all is the missing features. Most importantly, it's no longer possible to sort by date or restrict stories by date. The absence of those two things alone has rendered the site of minimal usefulness to me.
On the plus side, it did spur me to install and configure my own news aggregator -- so I don't need Google News anymore.
Telegram does not really require your phone number, it only needs one to verify your account. What is wrong with that?
I don't know anything about Telegram specifically, but unless it's actually using the phone number for some feature (exchanging SMS, maybe?), then everything is wrong with that.
True! But none of that means the "unsecure" isn't a word. It's a word that in its verb form is currently alive and well, and in its adjective form used to be common.
Whether or not something is a word is defined by whether or not it's in use. It has nothing to do with whether or not it appears in a dictionary (dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive), or whether or not a red squiggly line appears under it in an editor.
So, the threshold for "troll" is "someone who says something you disagree with" now?
My problem with hangouts isn't its feature set. It's that it performs poorly and tends to be rather buggy. Every time I've used the thing, it's been an exercise in frustration.
The point is, whether or not "terrorists" are using or have used encryption is unimportant. Weakening crypto by law won't affect terrorist use of crypto at all. They'll do what most security-minded folks will do: keep using the uncompromised stuff.
Encryption either works or it does not work. There is no middle ground
Strictly speaking, then, this rule means that there are very nearly no encryption methods that work, and those few that do are not suitable for the sorts of uses we want encryption for.
Almost all crypto can be thought of in the same terms as physical security: there is no such thing as absolute security. The goal of crypto is to delay the exposure of the secret information for long enough that when it is exposed, the information is no longer so valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the place for the card paradigm?
Except that it makes it much harder for me to find the stories that I'm interested in reading. There are fewer on the page, there's less information about them on which to decide if they're worth my time, and they removed the tools that I used to help me find the good stuff.
Google News has become pretty worthless to me now -- or, to put it more charitably, it is now no better than any of the other aggregators that exist (and worse than some, such as Bing).
But I've just finished working around the problem: I've set up my own aggregator on my own server, and now I have all the features I need back again.
Who cares if something "looks dated"? What I care about is if the UI actually accomplishes the things a UI should. This redesign utterly fails on that count. Give me a usable dated-looking UI over this sort of thing anytime.
Sure. There have been numerous changes that I've had a very positive reaction to. The issue is whether it's change for the better or not. Change which doesn't improve anything is never a good thing.
It's just a further spreading of the horribleness that the "UX" people insist on foisting on us all.
The new header doesn't scroll with the page -- it just constantly wastes a ton of space. The old one did scroll with the page. Big, big difference.
"I don't like change!"
Yeah, that's not what's happening. I have no problem with change when it improves things. The problem with this particular change is that it does the opposite of that.
In other words, the new layout is designed to increase ad views.
That makes sense. But, at least in my case, it achieved the opposite. Google News is not terribly useful to me now, so I stopped going there -- reducing my ad views to zero.
It's not perfect, but it could be a lot worse.
I disagree. I think it's truly terrible, but it could be a lot worse.
You're far from the only one. "Material Design" is user-hostile garbage.
Which is fine if you want the news relating to a specific search term. If you just want a general news page, though, you're out of luck.
I've been trying to get used to it, but its flaws are so severe that it is no longer of any use to me whatsoever.
Aside from the insanely low information density now, omitting very important things like summaries, it's much more difficult to spot stories that I am actually interested in reading.
The layout is a disaster. The enormous fixed-size banner that eats up so much of the page, and the large right sidebar that insists on staying on the page when I reduce the window width to my preferred size (making it take up half of the window) are intolerable. And that card layout -- which I hate, but could probably learn to put up with.
Worst of all is the missing features. Most importantly, it's no longer possible to sort by date or restrict stories by date. The absence of those two things alone has rendered the site of minimal usefulness to me.
On the plus side, it did spur me to install and configure my own news aggregator -- so I don't need Google News anymore.
He simply didn't care enough to actually face inward.
I think it's worse than that. I don't think he believes any of it is a real problem outside of PR impact.
Not in a million years. I have a functioning ethical sensibility.
You have to delegate a ton of shit and can't pay close attention to a lot of it
But he absolutely knew and approved of some of the very worst of Uber's behavior: greyball, obtaining the rape victim's medical files, etc.
"He was too busy to notice" only goes so far.
I'm not surprised that Mayer is friends with the likes of Kalanick.
40megs for a chat program is a long, long way from being "low memory usage".
Telegram does not really require your phone number, it only needs one to verify your account.
What is wrong with that?
I don't know anything about Telegram specifically, but unless it's actually using the phone number for some feature (exchanging SMS, maybe?), then everything is wrong with that.
Oh, I misunderstood your comment. Never mind.
Since telephone lines existed, law enforcement has had access to them.
But until CALEA, they did not have ready access to them. CALEA was the backdooring of the entire phone system.
True! But none of that means the "unsecure" isn't a word. It's a word that in its verb form is currently alive and well, and in its adjective form used to be common.
Whether or not something is a word is defined by whether or not it's in use. It has nothing to do with whether or not it appears in a dictionary (dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive), or whether or not a red squiggly line appears under it in an editor.
So, the threshold for "troll" is "someone who says something you disagree with" now?
My problem with hangouts isn't its feature set. It's that it performs poorly and tends to be rather buggy. Every time I've used the thing, it's been an exercise in frustration.
None of those things gives you random enough numbers to render OTPs unbreakable.
The point is, whether or not "terrorists" are using or have used encryption is unimportant. Weakening crypto by law won't affect terrorist use of crypto at all. They'll do what most security-minded folks will do: keep using the uncompromised stuff.
Encryption either works or it does not work. There is no middle ground
Strictly speaking, then, this rule means that there are very nearly no encryption methods that work, and those few that do are not suitable for the sorts of uses we want encryption for.
Almost all crypto can be thought of in the same terms as physical security: there is no such thing as absolute security. The goal of crypto is to delay the exposure of the secret information for long enough that when it is exposed, the information is no longer so valuable.