nmjohn

> and paid for with your privacy (and probably your website user's privacy too)?

That's not really how ssl certs work - google isn't getting any information they wouldn't have otherwise had by issuing the ssl cert.

Why are other news sources which also have paywalls not banned? (nytimes, wsj, bloomberg, financial times, etc)

Why did he not want CVE's assigned?

> And please don’t reply.

Respectfully, if you don't want discussion, why comment in the first place?

Commenting telling someone not to comment and then ending in telling them not to bother replying is confusing behavior to me for a discussion forum.

> Note: Relies on Apple Silicon, and configured to only produce Apple Silicon builds.

Just curious, what is relying on apple silicon?

> I have no doubt we will see them attempting to aggressively exercise these in future years to shut down alternatives to Vision Pro in the future.

Do you have examples where apple has aggressively used patents offensively like this?

> because it implies that it should be necessary

Who gets to decide what should or should not be necessary? Do you think your opinion about this is the majority view by people?

> it’s borderline treason and should be prosecuted that way.

Have words lost all meaning? This is the most absurd thing I've read all day.

(And I promise I'm not even remotely defending the absurd situations you're referring to.)

What would your hypothetical egress arbitrage look like? Keep in mind we are specifically talking about cloudfront bandwidth - so being able to route to an upstream without that upstream also paying for bandwidth likely is not possible.

In my experience pricing can go far lower than that. The sibling commenter saying $0.001/GB on an 18PB /year commit seems reasonable to me.

If you can sign a yearly bandwidth commit (not sure what the minimum bandwidth requirement is, but 1PB / year may be in the ballpark) - you will get prices that are extremely competitive (maybe like 90%+ off base list pricing?)