No issues here on Firefox 146 Fedora/GNOME. Also imagine it's not uncommon for a personal site to not test for Safari if they're not in the Apple ecosystem.
If this were prior to 2021, I would say the CFAA could be violated so long as the property owner's _intentions_ were for that information to only be accessible to certain users. But I think the CFAA has been sufficiently reduced in scope after Van Buren v United States [0]
Ironically, these cameras are marketed to help catch predators walking/driving by playgrounds. What's concerning here is that they're connected to the internet and can be viewed remotely, which said predators would use to know when and where to strike off-camera.
I would normally say I’m fine with it if I can turn it off, but making agentic browsing secure is currently an unsolved problem, so I’d have concerns with the risks this will pose for people unaware of the lethal trifecta.
I think you're suggesting a centralized actor to verify the age of users which is problematic on multiple accounts. Practicality, privacy, enforcement, liability to coercion/corruption, and so on. This might be a wild take, but I think platforms could do a lot more to help with moderation to prevent child predators. Instead of just being okay with them finding outside avenues to converse with their victims through their platform, maybe use those algorithms to detect and prevent it in the first place, whether or not said child predators are whales for your platform or not.
I think that's more of an issue of discovery. If I wanted decent fiction, I would actually prefer Apple's catalogue of Sci-Fi shows over anything I can find on Netflix these days. While with Youtube, you can find hidden gems outside their algorithm. In fact, I'd recommend not abiding by the algorithm of any platform and seek outside sources for finding shows you'd enjoy. Each platform has the same goal to retain your attention.
"[O]ne outlier can dominate the average"; "We're used to living in this world of normal distributions and you act a certain way, but as soon as you switch to this realm that is governed by a power law, you need to start acting vastly different. It really pays to know what kind of world or what kind of game you are playing."
Their comment would technically be proprietary code since there's no license alongside it, but grishka wrote the original implementation of the reverse engineered code in that mastodon commit in the first place. So I'd imagine it's free game to use it as a reference (IANAL)
Grishka expresses that the code is trivial. Trivial inventions are not covered by patents. I believe, therefore, that a license for trivial code is not necessary.
But if someone knows better I would appreciate any correction. Legal matters are seldom clear or logical. Your jurisdiction may vary, etc etc.
In case there are any doubts, consider this code and its description public domain.
But then I'm not sure how much code is enough to be considered copyrightable. Is "2*2" copyrightable? Clearly not, because it's too trivial. Where is the line?
Patent != copyright. You can patent an algorithm (e.g., Adaptive Replacement Caching, which was scheduled to go into public domain this year but unfortunately got renewed successfully) but when it gets to the level of an actual specific implementation, it's a matter of copyright law.
It's why black-box clones where you look at an application and just try to make one with the same externally-observable behavior without looking at the code is legal (as long as you don't recycle copyrighted assets like images or icons) but can be infringing if you reuse any of the actual source code.
This was an issue that got settled early on and got covered in my SWE ethics class in college, but then more recently was re-tried in Oracle v Google in the case of Google cloning the Java standard library for the Android SDK.
I have no idea how copyright applies here. StackOverflow has a rule in their terms of use that all the user-generated content there is redistributable under some kind of creative commons license that makes it easy to reuse. Perhaps HN has a similar rule? Not that I'm aware of, though.
Gitlab's post and the linked discussion thread are both from November 24th 2025. I may be misreading the parent comment, but I'm personally thankful there isn't a Return of the Return of Shai-Hulud, as I assumed this was a third recent incident. For those concerned about these attacks, Helixguard's post (from the linked discussion) lists out the packages they found to be effected, while Gitlab's post gives more information on how the attack works. Since it's self-propagating though, assume the list of affected packages might be longer as more NPM tokens are compromised.
I think it might be more of a Discord problem. I've experienced "a few weird crashes" on Windows, Mac, and Wayland GNOME. Windows being the most problematic in general.
idk how we can blame some JavaScript and html inside Firefox causing a Wayland crash as Discord’s fault. They’re like 9000 layers of abstraction away from whatever SIGSEGV caused the crash
reply