> some of the newer products seemed less powerful than older ones
Cynic in me thinks it's because they don't want you to buy one product and be set for a decade, like HN-er here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46373387. Older products might've been too good.
>> I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand for manufacturers
> My wife’s work WiFi is handled by a gl.inet 150 (...) since at least 2019. All her devices connect to it (...) Cost me 15€ in 2016.
I think this answers GP's question as (yet another) solid reason why manufacturers "can't understand" prosumer needs - it's because targeting prosumers, or generally making products that "just works", is very bad for sales down the line.
Some point being any half-decent middle-school textbook, or any popular science space book for teens. There's usually a footnote or an info box explaining that Earth isn't a perfect sphere.
It's not some arcane nerd knowledge. It's just a detail people don't remember from school because it's irrelevant to their lives.
The "threat model" (if anyone even called it that) of applications back then was bugs resulting in unintended spin-locks, and the user not realizing they're critically short on RAM or disk space.
At any time any company could turn evil, and any free(ish) government could become totalitarian overnight. This is a fact, but also pretty useless one.
The real questions to ask are, how likely it is to happen, and if that happens, how much did all these privacy measures accomplish.
The answer to those are, "not very", and "not much".
Down here on Earth, there are more real and immediate issues to consider, and balance to be found between preventing current and future misuse of data by public and private parties of all sides, while sharing enough data to be able to have a functioning technological civilization.
Useful conversations and realistic solutions are all about those grey areas.
>At any time any company could turn evil, and any free(ish) government could become totalitarian overnight. This is a fact, but also pretty useless one.
Is it isrlsss paranoia when it's happening around us as we speak?
It's strange how we call it "preparation" to spend trillions of dollars on mobilizing a military, but "paranoia" to simply take some best practices and not have the citizen's data dangling around. Its a much cheaper aspect with huge results, like much of tech.
I live in a good neighborhood and I have left my door unlocked once or twice to no consequence. That doesn't mean it's paranoia to make a habit out of locking my doors.
That's all I assert here. Care and effort. I don't know all the subtle steps to take since I'm not in cybersecurit, but we still shouldn't excuse sloppiness.
Exactly. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s probable. Everything is a risk. Everyone needs to prioritize against the set of risks that can be identified and figure out if they can be mitigated.
This is really well-stated, and I'd add that even if you want to adopt the paranoid perspective, it still shouldn't lead someone to flatten all risks until they look the same. In real-world scenarios with real risk (military, firefighting, policing, etc.) real effort is made to measure and prioritize risks. Without that measuring and prioritizing risks the privacy crowd prevented from making real improvement.
"healthcare, video rental records" wait what? One of these things, etc. Curious how that came to be? Is it like special rules for (IIRC) onions in finance?
That would be like every traffic incident ever? I don't think US has public cars or state-owned utilities.
reply