- ulrikrasmussenI am using a cheap Deltaco, but the range is a bit too low, so I am thinking of switching to a K400+
- I have the same setup and have never looked back. My kids can control the TV now via the browser instead of asking me to fiddle with a smartphone, and I can easily block e.g. YouTube via the hosts file. The ability to have multiple streaming services open in different tabs and reading online reviews all on the same screen is also vastly superior to any UX offered by e.g. Chromecast or similar devices.
- I agree with you except for the Apple TV part. I use a mini-PC running Ubuntu and use a wireless keyboard with integrated touchpad to control it, and it works wonderfully and has a much better user experience than the Chromecast I was using before - a product which has progressively become more and more shitty over the years to the point of being unusable.
An Apple TV is probably also OK, but likely also much more expensive. Also, Apple is a company that is and always has done all they could to lock down their platforms, lock in their users and seek exorbitant fees from developers releasing to their platform.
- I disagree with the premise. For me, "works better" means that I can swap out one of the devices in my fleet with a different brand and still have a functioning setup.
But even ignoring that, I think your claim can be true while forcing Apple to be compatible is still the right thing to do, because optimizing for personal convenience and user experience only is not the best outcome if it comes at the expense of market failure due to vendor lock-in.
- It's not clearly labeled, it is a very small label with white text on a pale blue background in an already very busy UI. It is clearly made to look like a real search result and not an ad. On top of this, the screenshots are clearly made to mislead the user into thinking that this is the officiel Microsoft authenticator app by having a large text saying "Authenticator for Microsoft" and a second screenshot with a "Microsoft" TOTP entry.
This is an example of a company whose financial incentives are in direct conflict with the interests of their users, and so they choose to be complicit in borderline fraudulent auctivities.
- This is the result of effectively having a duopoly on the smartphone OS market and the extremely hostile environment for post-market operating systems. Apple just has to make sure that they are marginally less shitty than Google, and Google can keep increasing how obnoxious their ads are once Apple catches up.
- This is the same experience on Play Store. 100% of the time, the top result when I search is NOT what I want but something completely irrelevant or downright fraudulent and/or misleading. And Google is complicit in this fraud by even selling no 1. search results.
- Maybe they mean more content will be produced, which I believe. But I'd also argue that we really don't need more content on Netflix, we need higher quality. Netflix is drowning in a sea of mediocrity to the point where I have almost given up on investing in a new show because almost all of them reek of lazy writing and good-enough-but-not-outstanding direction. There are exceptions, but they are damn hard to find.
- Thanks, I completely agree with you! It seems that most people here will happily trade their freedom for some convenience by just handing their digital lives to Google though, which to me is crazy, but apparently how the majority thinks.
- That's sort of the point of LUKS, and it's self-inflicted and your own choice because you didn't back up the key.
- Congrats, you are trading freedom for some convenience.
- So what? That's why we don't buy Apple products and never have.
- With the move to close down Android further and evil remote attestation, the PC is the last computing platform that leaves the user in somewhat control over the system. This is an indirect attack on our freedom, and I really don't want a future where two American companies somehow got a duopoly with full control over the hardware and software stack of all general purpose computing devices, and on top of that also act as the gatekeepers and distributors of all third-party software. Fuck. That. Shit.
I want full control, and by that I don't mean the ability to customize the color of my UI, but the ability to run whatever software I choose on the device that I supposedly own.
Sure, I may be able to technically be able to run Linux on a PC and retain my free choice for a while, but that is only until Google and Apple has finished selling their remote attestation security snake oil to governments, banks and service providers so that people like me will just be excluded from the digital society altogether.
- Ironically I can't read this article due to the ongoing Cloudflare explosion.
- Yeah, I went to HN after the third web page didn't work. I am not just worried about the single point of failure, I am much more worried about this centralization eventually shaping the future standards of the web and making it de facto impossible to self-host anything.
Well that and the fact that when 99% goes through a central party, then that central party will be very interesting for authoritarian governments to apply sweeping censorship rules to.
- They're not conflating them, they are pointing out that the closedness of the system and the control it gives Apple will be a useful tool to authoritarians who can force Apple to exert their power in certain ways.
Everyone who is not a public service is just "making a product", but when your product is actually half of all endpoints for digital services and communication and you insist on not handing control to the users, then you effectively control half the infrastructure.
- Why? It's not because a hardware token based solution that will work on desktops is technically impossible, but they literally wrote me that they have no plans to investigate the possibility of offering that. This is officially the plan for the permanent solution.
- My kids (6 and 8) are pretty well raised I'd say, but they do have access to a Playstation and a PC, with clear rules and time limits for use. They are good at making friends and don't do trouble in school, and they also have healthy interests other than playing video games. This is because we actively raise them so they can learn to adjust their needs and interact with others, not because we limit their screen time. The problem today is that many parents seemingly does not raise their kids well, maybe because they don't spend enough time together, perhaps because the parents themselves spend their time scrolling reels.
I myself grew up with a desktop computer from around age 7 and it shaped me early on in a positive way to be curious. Computers were also a central part of my social life. There are many positive things that kids can get out of computers, so I find the comparison with alcohol to be hyperbolic.
- I don't know, maybe? Maybe it's not up to the state to decide whether my kids developmental metrics allows them screen time before age 13? What kind of nanny state is that?
- I was learning to program at age 11. This does indeed sound extreme.