Do older versions of Nova have any security flaws which preclude using them?
I've been using this app for ages and it's been essentially feature-complete for several years. A part of me wants to switch launchers for no other reason than "it is supported and not tracking me", but it is possible for software to be finished, and I believe Nova falls into that category. If there's no meaningful vulnerabilities in it, there's really no reason for me to switch away, at least not immediately.
Those threads appear to be stoking the drama more than anything. HN's stated goal is to satisfy intellectual curiosity, and even if the post topic itself is of interest, if the discussion isn't substantive then the system is probably working as intended (regardless of whether it's the flamewar detector or a manual downweight).
NJ Transit uses QR codes for all train tickets and it works well enough. It's not quite as seamless as a tap card but NJT has moved largely to mobile ticketing and they're in the odd position of having to scan tickets both at turnstiles and by train crew (handheld scanners); cards would be awkward in the latter case. The paper tickets used to have magstripes but once they adopted QR codes for the mobile app, the tickets lost the magstipe and gained a printed QR code.
So the central server model is practical. The user's device has to have an internet connection at some point to activate the ticket within a reasonable period before using it but the connection doesn't have to persist after that. I don't know how their handheld scanners work in the Hudson River tunnels where there is no cell service but they do, so long as the user activates their ticket before the train departs.
This is really cool, thanks for pointing it out! I have used Eruda and keep it in Tampermonkey in Firefox for use in a pinch but it's hacky. It's impressive that it works at all, but it's very difficult to do any actual work.
I already had Kiwi installed and it's neat to pop it open and see this feature hiding in plain sight. I can definitely see myself using it regularly, although I won't use it as a daily driver since it selectively blocks adblockers on a hardcoded list of domains which is just untrustworthy. https://github.com/kiwibrowser/src/blob/master/extensions/re...
The million dollar question is, how do we know which brands are the good ones?
Is there a community which tackles this sort of problem alone? The best I have found so far is to find the community surrounding a type of product, especially on Reddit - there is a community around almost every interest imaginable - and figure out which brands they recommend, via search or just asking.
Often they even have advice in a stickied thread or wiki article.
Neither do TV or movies for the most part; there are many examples of high art in those formats but the most popular examples thereof are hardly at all intellectually gratifying, educational, or otherwise "helpful", as you put it (a good descriptor). It's entertainment - it's there for fun, and in many cases, it's there for the sake of art. (That's not to say that e.g. popcorn flicks don't have any artistic qualities, just that they're aiming for the former, not the latter.) The issue is more in the ways that YouTube tries to keep you watching, like the other massive social media sites.
No one else, ever, has had a platform where an independent video creator could start with a handful of viewers and build up to millions, and even potentially make a career out of it. No, it's not common, there's a ton of work involved with no immediate payout, and it requires at least a bit of luck with the dreaded "algorithm", but it's probably more merit-based than what we had before, and that's a wonderful thing.
(I'm not entirely certain about that last bit, hence "probably". How merit-based was/is TV and film, precisely? I just find it hard to believe that they're better than YouTube, given the quantity of quality creators on it who could never find a slot, much less an audience, on any other platform or format that has ever been.)
With regard to the ubiquity: given the lack of competitors, apparently the capital requirements are so high and the lock-in effects so strong that there aren't any companies willing to give it a go. The closest thing we have, Twitch, filled a niche that YouTube wasn't technically capable of at the time, grew large enough before YouTube decided to try to enter that market so Twitch was able to acquire those same lock-in effects, and was bought by Amazon who provides the capital to ensure a smooth experience (Twitch prior to the acquisition was far more prone to performance issues).
I loved Live when I had a chance to use it, but to quote the professor I had at the time - it's "so bloody expensive".
As an amateur, it's extremely hard to justify the doubling of the price of FL. (The $100 edition of Live is limited to 16 tracks so don't even bother.)
YouTube generates $15b in revenue on ads, plus YouTube Premium memberships [1] and so the cost of storing and serving all of the data would also have to total in the billions, after paying ad revenue to creators as well as other costs. That could be the case, although if they were taking a substantial loss it's unlikely they would hold on for as long as they have.
YouTube also has the benefit of having monopoly power over its market - to their credit, no one else, ever, has had a platform where an independent video creator could start with a handful of viewers and build up to millions. But since they have all of the creators already, and starting a competitor is extremely capital-intensive, there aren't any competitors at anything near their scale. For the most part the usual way to find other YouTube creators is YouTube, via their recommendation algorithm. There is a significant lock-in effect.
Since they have monopoly power, they should be able to find ways to monetize their platform, even if potentially contentious. They recently turned on mid-roll ads on all videos longer than 8 minutes (unless the creator opts out) [2] so it's not like they're out of ideas.
YouTube allows free video uploads and ingests an incredible amount of content every day. Most of that content won't make any money, or just pennies, and yet they're storing it for free. They're not running out of space.
In retrospect, it's not surprising that they're ending the unlimited free ride. Most (all?) of the major photo hosting sites ended their unlimited free plans ages ago. Clearly it is not sustainable from a business perspective.
(I am not referring to the meme sites like Imgur who host images at a far lower resolution with a far higher compression ratio, which is of course useless for photos.)
Has there been any movement on this front since 2016? I've also heard of these security issues with Mint, since around that time, but it's been four years and I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that it's possible they've improved in that timespan, one way or another.
I've been using this app for ages and it's been essentially feature-complete for several years. A part of me wants to switch launchers for no other reason than "it is supported and not tracking me", but it is possible for software to be finished, and I believe Nova falls into that category. If there's no meaningful vulnerabilities in it, there's really no reason for me to switch away, at least not immediately.