I think from UX perspective it is unbelievably more convenient as well. Plain popup warnings with "press Ok if you mean it" are bad enough, but quite recently the new even worse "type delete, if you want to delete, then press Ok" popup has been spreading about... If I want to delete over a couple of things I get incredibly irked.
> Actual riots, insurrection, disruption of government, assaults on law enforcement, damage to government buildings, theft of government property, violence, and deaths, have occurred.
This describes the past half-year in Portland, Seattle, and more sporadically in many other cities.
I believe that no accounts on the Left: organizing, not merely advocating - have been permanently shut down.
So, I'm very skeptical that anything legitimate has changed. It feels very political.
This. There are groups like Rose City Antifa in Portland or EDM (Every Day March) in Seattle that regularly engage in widespread violence, disruption, and illegal behavior. They organize and advertise and evangelize their events on all the typical social media platforms. They haven’t been given even a warning, let alone a ban. And yes, people have died due to these groups’ actions.
This "experiment" is a sham in many ways, both in design and the reporting:
* The researchers call it "guaranteed income". That's somewhat accurate, because it's $500 extra payment, no questions asked. But it's not in any way "basic income", or "universal basic income" which is how it's being reported.
* It's paid for by an organization (SEED) which claims the thing it's seeking to prove. (That no-questions-asked welfare improves peoples moods.) The result is pre-determined.
* Just 120 low-income people are receiving an additional $500/month. This is far from Universal Basic Income: No income test, enough money to survive on, and no other gov support.
* SEED is making unsupported claims about how the money is getting spent (only on wholesome, necessary items). They can't assert that, however, because they're not tracking the _rest_ of the subjects' spending. They also did not track the subjects' spending before the intervention. Thus, they cannot rule out "lifestyle inflation".
* The study methods specifically allow for 25 subjects to be used for "political" purposes during the study, for interviews on TV, etc.
Absolutely. The title isn't just sensational, it's misleading. OP's browser is opensource and uses a P2P-like architecture. It sounds incompatible with current rights management.
OP sounds like he feels entitled to others' work and efforts. If he wants to play videos in his browser, he can make them. Or find people who will make videos for free for him.
All OPs browser does is syncronse playback across users legitimate Netflix (or other) accounts.
OPs broswer will pass the encrypted video through to the DRM plug-in, which will authenticate from Netflix through to the to the screen. It will decrypt the video, decode it, re-encrypt with hdcp and send it to the monitor.
The DRM chain is intact. OPs browser can't be used to pirate the videos, or steal Netflix.
All he needs is permission to ship the closed source DRM plug-in.
A very misleading title. But the content is nothing to get upset about. Reasonable people can easily disagree:
* Google didn't can can't block a new web browser from working.
* OP is making an _opensource_ browser
* OP's browser is specifically made for showing videos in some kind of P2P architecture.
* OP is upset because he can't play some other peoples' videos in his new browser.
The R in DRM, standing for Rights is relevant: this isn't your content, OP. Thousands of creatives, artists, and investors put time, sweat and blood into these. They've chosen DRM as the way to get paid. You have no right to their content. If you don't like DRM then vote with your feet - watch others' content, and find another way to compensate them.
Taken literally, the article only highlights a correlation - introduction of the physical keys + absence of phishing. But Google may have introduced other security changes as well. The article doesn't go so far as to say that the switch to physical keys from SMS 2FA actually solved the problem on its own.
