Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | lilsoso's commentslogin

Thanks for the browser recommendations.

I switched to the Mullvad browser. The other recommendation, LibreWolf, provides the following warning on install which scared me away: "Warning: librewolf has been deprecated because it does not pass the macOS Gatekeeper check! It will be disabled on 2026-09-01."


FYI I wouldn’t say that the Mullvad browser is any better at anti-fingerprinting than Librewolf. I always point people to http://fingerprint.com/ so they can see how difficult it is to beat even JS based tracking and this doesn’t even get into the server-side methods (i.e. just fetching a stylesheet) of tracking users.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t use a browser that blocks ads etc but I don’t think people should immediately think that they’re not fingerprintable because they’re running these. There definitely needs to be more discussion on the reality of how much these browsers can “protect” you.


The article rants about how turning off JavaScript is actually harmful because it makes you more fingerprintable, then in the same breath recommend switching to an obscure browser nobody else uses?

If you want to avoid being uniquely identifiable stick to Chrome, signed into a Google account, running on a PC from Best Buy.


tldr -- it's fine. MacOS Gatekeeper will create warnings about products that are not signed via the apple developer program, which is $99/year librewolf is an open source product, that is very strictly a "community" libre / FOSS project. naturally, having an individual take up notarization assumedly, you are using brew -- brew recently decided to stop supporting / deprecate all casks that does not pass gatekeeper checks, for some reason I cannot fully determine.


Why would I trust any software that doesn’t pass the gatekeeper test? Even if it claims to be “open source” with links to some code repo there is no guarantee the binary blob you are running was built using only that code and nothing else.

Sure even with the gatekeeper test you can’t be sure it’s built against only the claimed code but it does guarantee:

1) the binary hasn’t been modified since it was signed 2) the binary was signed by somebody in possession of the private key 3) there is some measure of identification via Apple on who or what signed the binary 4) somebody was willing to fork over $99 to sign the binary

It’s not perfect security by any means but it is something. Otherwise the binary you are running might as well have come from some sketchy email attachment. And fuck that. Why would I want that on my machine?

I get that the $99 might be a hurdle for “non-organized open source” (ie most open source… doesn’t have a non-profit entity to take up the expense and credential management, etc…)… and there are probably ways apple could make it easier for such “collectives”… but ultimately I’d argue that signed binaries are good for everybody. While imperfect, they provide some form of traceability and accountability.

obviously it’s not a 100% guarantee of being fuckery-free. The private key might have been compromised, the appleid might have been hijacked and the developer program might have been enrolled with stolen credit cards… but it’s still a hurdle to filter out a large swath of low effort nonsense.


You could always just build it yourself from source if you are concerned.


Sure but most people aren’t going to do that. It automatically limits the audience willing to use the software.

This isn’t an easy problem! I’d argue signed binaries are good for everybody… They are good for the end user because it provides some assurance the thing hasn’t been tampered with and provides at least some form of audit history. It’s good for the developers too! It ensures that users are running the binaries the dev intended them to run! It’s good for the platform maker as it reduces the attack surface…

The problem is… getting the keys to sign binaries requires getting a private key! And not just any key but one that been blessed somehow by something that all parties can trust. And trust isn’t a technical problem but a meatspace human some. Apple solves it by requiring the dev to cough up 100USD and probably some other personal information. I have no idea how Ubuntu does it or Microsoft…. But something, somewhere has to bless that signing key.


So for Linux, generally you are installing packages from your distro's repo so they are signed by the repo itself. I would have assumed that it would be the same on Mac with brew/macports/etc signing the code, but from what you are saying I guess not, I don't see why.

Edit: Apparently Brew doesn't sign stuff because they don't trust the code they are being asked to sign. Apparently you can just get brew to build the package locally with `brew install --build-from-source librewolf` though which is useful.

On windows you just need a certificate from a known authority. This will still probably cost you money but you have a lot more options at different price levels. Also that certificate is a widely useful thing rather than an apple dev account which is only useful in the apple walled garden.


Sounds like you need to switch OS


The article is light on details of the substance of these lectures. While I couldn't find the referenced lecture, the following lecture might be similar:

Hoover Institution: Apocalypse Now? Peter Thiel on Ancient Prophecies and Modern Tech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqHueZNEzig


Could you kindly support that statement and explain why you feel that way.


I googled the name, and there exists a Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Lasker


To dismiss him as being “devoid of information” is lazy and cheap. He had scholars on his team shape his message.


“Scholars”


In Mexico you can buy prepaid SIM cards with cash, and without an ID, at convenience stores such as 7-11 or Oxxo.


That's far, but good to know.


You can buy prepaid SIM cards with cash, and without hassle, in the US as well.

You can do this in many countries, I believe, as well as online through services offered in exchange for crypto.

You didn't define where "here" is for you. Mexico is a better option than the US because the retail price of a SIM card with a number and service is around 50 pesos (maybe lower).


Yeah, I forgot: I'm in switzerland.


> Is this actually a problem you see? I'm going on 15 years in the industry and haven't seen any issues training people up on a new language in just a couple months.

Some years ago the largest company using Elixir in the US, or at least on the west coast, abandoned Elixir because they couldn't find enough developers.

Yes. The adoption is poor despite the loud voices.


Just curious, what company? Disclosure: I work at a large Elixir company in the US.


That's so disappointing to hear. I have an intern who hadn't touched Elixir 4 weeks ago who is already making meaningful PRs. She's done the PragProg courses and leans a bit on Copilot/Claude, but she's proving how quickly one can get up to speed on the language and contribute. To hear that a major company couldn't bring resources up to speed, to me, shows a failure of the organization, not the language or ecosystem.


No, they're going 20-something mph in perhaps a 20mph zone: the author stated kilometers per hour.


Would be interesting to know how much data leaks on a new iPhone with some of the iOS privacy settings enabled and a handful of popular apps installed (WhatsApp, Instagram, Google Maps, Uber, etc).

And then if you use a commercial VPN with DNS ad-blocking enabled, how much more does this help?


Going by TFA, not much.


I added a response to this question in another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42254263


Marc Andreessen mentioned what's called "Operation Chokepoint 2.0" in relation to many tech founders being debanked. In the crypto industry you can find many examples of this, however they're often not so public. Here's an instance from the entrepreneur Sam Hamidi-Kazemian:

'Kept quiet about this for almost a year out of fear but since I'm in good company with @tyler @cameron @brian_armstrong @elonmusk now.. Last December, I got a call from JPM saying "we have to close anyone's account that we know their primary source of income/wealth is crypto. This is directly from the top from Jamie. I'm really sorry."

I had a close relationship with my banker so I assume 99% of people wouldn't even get that kind of transparency/explanation. Wanted to add my own name to the debanked OCP list @nic__carter. It's real. It happened. Hopefully now it will soon be over.' -- https://x.com/samkazemian/status/1861956394079101391

Furthermore, this phenomenon affects not only founders but is common to retail investors. Try cashing out seven figures to your bank via a crypto payment rail and see how the bank reacts. If you get close to a successful crypto investors you can find many cases. However, this crowd often stays quiet: revealing that you're a high net worth individual, particularly in crypto, can be a security risk so these stories are shared in private chats amongst individuals of the same status.

Another case of added pressure, perhaps in a different vein, can be seen here: https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/business/fbi-seizes-polymarket...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: