techslave

that’s revisionist. usenet was already dead. google extended its life, in fact.

why would you need a usenet similar service? usenet still exists and the barrier is, as you say, high enough.

I don’t see a problem with it. It says more about the comment author than it does about the article. If he (commenter) wants to out himself as a knowitallogist, so be it?

> Advertisers shouldn't know what I like, they should only know that a certain device with a certain ID likes X,Y topics.

That is in fact what advertisers know. It’s the aggregators that know who you are, not the advertisers.

thought this would be useless griping of sonos that has existed for years now. no, this is new and valuable information. glad i got rid of sonos long ago.

well known. only use domains.google (for searching).

> they'd have to give them their FCM credentials, which is a no-no.

trivially addressed via a proxy, which you’d want anyway to properly monetize it

casual culture talk with 2 people, then a 2-5 day contract. only works for out of work candidates of course.

yeah well you’re not being persecuted. for many it may as well be the 12th century or whatever

gmail burns addresses forever. no one else will get it if you close it.

i owned [email protected] for many years before they realized they shouldn’t have allowed that to be registered. that was fun.

muy interensante.

we often theorize about / present a threat model of an insider becoming malicious in exactly this way. rare that we hear of it actually occurring.

the number used in such threat modeling scenarios is typically $1MM. maybe we need to up that to $4.5MM. (per TFA)

note the simplification in the headline: the $1MM was merely the insider’s share, not the proposed ransomware amount.

i think this deserves a nitpick. when we say “makes” wrt a person, it means their gross salary/income. here, it refers to revenue. that’s misleading.

yes funny but why would they call it that. jamon murica