Threads for afronski
Painting everything concerned with Googleâs blatant disregard for privacy as âalarmistâ is not okay.
Endless repetitions â we need to repeat constantly when writing it. It is error-prone as well as hard to maintain. YAML and JSON flavors do not support any fragments or smaller templating engine, so it is difficult to reuse and work in line with DRY (donât repeat yourself) principle.
Is this something you can get with node anchors?
-
Great question! I believe you canât, Iâve tried while ago.
TL;DR: CloudFormation does not support that, see here: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/template-formats.html - it does not support hash merges, effectively you cannot use anchors.
Working on a tool which is effectively a layer on top of an Amazon service feels like a risky business. If you demonstrate that the need exists, whatâs to stop them waking up tomorrow to quickly build an in-house duplicate?
-
Nothing. ;) If AWS will build something better, thatâs a great thing - way to go!
Itâs not our primary business. We would love to have such facilities in place already. We build that tool in order to ease the pain regarding maintaining a pile of templates - for our convenience.
Good job with organice! I have looked for such a project for quite some time. However, even if it looks great (and has mobile/web apps), it still misses one element from my flow: there is no git backend. Are there any plans to add it?
Thank you for your kind words đ
organice already features a huge amount of synchronization options: Dropbox, Google Drive, WebDAV (which opens the door to ownCloud, Nextcloud and Seafile, but also self hosted dedicated WebDAV servers like Apache or Nginx).
For that, synchronization is build using the strategy pattern which is consumed here[1]. Implementing a new backend implies implementing 8 functions[2]. For Dropbox, itâs about 120 LOC JavaScript.
Iâll happily merge any PR enabling a different backend and support the development of it and will test it if I have access to a compatible backend.
As for me, I have no plans to build a Git client in the browser as this would be a huge undertaking with uncertain benefits. Personally, Iâm happy synchronizing to storage like Dropbox wherein my Org files are sitting in a Git repository. Then, I can properly manage them from a proper Git client (in Emacs).
Got it, however, there are some existing Git clients for browser/node environment like Isomorphic-Git. [1] Iâd be interested to add such to the organice, test it by dogfooding it. ;)
Regarding other features: I have reviewed the current capabilities and they represent very good coverage of my workflow. Almost fitting my sweet spot. ;) Additionally, I am a GSuite user, so GDrive fits perfectly. However, any Linux-based client for it is an abomination, mildly put (paid/free, doesnât matter), and I do not have any incentive to use Dropbox.
From a quick glance, isomorphic-git looks nice! Iâd be happy to support you if you have any questions whilst creating a PR for integration.
NB: Iâve heard people use GDrive as a back-end for NextCloud[1]. I have no experience with that, but find the NextCloud Linux client itself quite good.
From what Iâve seen most object stores other than the big 3 donât actually replicate across data centers.
Yes that feature only seems to be available from the big 3 - but even there is it is not the default and you pay a little extra for it. Azure have a lot of options but Iâm not completely clear in my mind what the usecase for this is
I can help - if you say that you do not want to replicate, there is a special storage tier for that: S3 One Zone - Infrequent Access and with that 1 TB in eu-central-1 (Frankfurt) costs you ~11 USD per month which is as cheap as OVH from your table and you are comparing apples to apples.
Please tell me this is a parody.
Kinda, as it is a small side project that I build to experiment with various tech, however, I am glad it cheered up your day. :D
If you could be more specific, what is not likable Iâd be grateful.
It took until I reached the end of the article for me to realize that the title wasnât sarcastic. Itâs not the first time Iâve seen it but itâs a reminder that this feature is simultaneously fantastic and horrifying.
I didnât even realize until I read your comment. I skimmed it, saw the screenshot of Takeout, and was like âah yes, another guide for moving off of Google servicesâŠâ and closed the tab.
Not sure why are you calling this as horrifying. Is it because google have access to all your data? In Btwn Iâm the author of this blog.
Yes but in particular the location history is an extremely detailed log of your activity. You could imagine a dishonest corporation or government misusing this data to suppress dissidents or manipulate individuals.
Mobile phone companies had that data for a decade longer than Google. Donât think that if we got Google to stop collecting it somehow the problem of tracking has been solved.
Iâm far away from justifying Google, but there are two problems with your reasoning:
Yes, the latter happened in the past in various countries. So pointing into G. is plain cherry-picking.
Yup, thatâs the answer to you. I assumed blindly from your comment that your question is ironic and you think that such data can be misused only by G. or any other corporation having it nowadays.
As someone pointed out very wisely above, mobile companies / ISPs have that data from decades, and there are documented examples of abuse or misuse based on that data by the government services in countries of the former USSR or Russia in 80s/90s.
Thatâs just example with gov, and Iâm not touching even the topic when those companies itself are abusing that.
Regarding the detailed log of your activity, have a look at this video from ForbrukerrÄdet Norge:
âGoogle manipulates users into constant trackingâ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIq17DeAc1M
A more accurate title would have been âThank you Google for sharing some of my data with me.â Itâs horrifying because it gives a glimpse of how much power they hold over their users, and how easily this power can be abused.
Thereâs a large and quiet community of tech people who have Stockholm syndrome w.r.t. privacy, and who would never have given up this level of privacy for a bit of convenience all at once. The only reason they have given up this privacy is that itâs been gradual. Itâs the old fable of the frog in the pot of boiling water all over again.
Imho it is also related to the massive shift in user trust in Google we have seen lately, when the âDonât Be Evilâ slogan has more and more turned into a memory of a distant past.
Maybe we were naive, but up until 2010 - 2012(?) I actually trusted Google more than other tech giants with my data.
Somewhat humorously modified into: âDonât, Be Evilâ
If you havenât heard someone use âStockholm syndromeâ more generally than actually literally implying that someone actually literally has proper Stockholm syndrome, then you need to get out more.
Google absolutely takes its users hostage. People start out using something, and then gradually they become more and more dependent on Google. A lot of people are in a situation where they cannot extricate themselves from Google without considerable time, effort and money.
Also, to go back to talking about actual Stockholm syndrome for a moment: to suggest that you canât have Stockholm syndrome if the relationship with the captor started off as your own free choice is pretty ridiculous. I would wager that the vast majority of cases of Stockholm syndrome do not involve someone being kidnapped by a stranger, but that they involve someone getting into a relationship with someone else, and that person manipulating them over time into a situation of high dependence upon the captor. People donât have to be chained up to be held captive.
And people donât have to be literally forced to use Google to be held hostage by them. Their data is held hostage by them, their lives are held hostage by them.
Itâs not alarmist. Itâs alarming.
Nothing is being exaggerated. Destruction of privacy is the single most important social issue of our time. It manifests in countless ways, from the proliferation of invasive tabloid âjournalismâ to the widespread use of personal-information-harvesting social media platforms.
And the worry and panic around the issue is not needless. Itâs sorely needed. Thereâs a general sense of apathy around this very important issue. Not being apathetic is not the same as being âalarmistâ.
I suspect you genuinely arenât comprehending what âliteralâ and âmetaphoricalâ mean in this situation, unfortunately. Nobody is literally suggesting Google is capturing or taking hostage of or kidnapping anyone. But Google certainly does control the data of a large number of people that still hold irrational positive feelings towards Google despite their loss of privacy. They would not hold these positive feelings towards them if their data had been taken all at once, but because itâs gradual they havenât really noticed and donât really care when theyâre told.
For most users it takes a colossal amount of time, effort and money relative to the time, effort and money they have available in their lives. Itâs low urgency, regardless of how important people feel it is, and low urgency high importance tasks generally take a back seat to the long stream of high urgency things people have to deal with in their lives.
But it is the metaphorical use of the word hostage Iâm using.
Itâs not patronising. This is what I find so incredibly frustrating about discussing this sort of thing on online forums. If lots of people agree on something, it has to be a âcirclejerkâ. If you view anyone as naive, youâre automatically just being âpatronisingâ. If youâre concerned about anything, all of a sudden youâre being âalarmistâ.
You cannot just respond to everything I say with lazy thought-terminating cliches. Concerned about something? Just alarmist. Thinks some people are acting irrationally or naively? Just patronising. No, thatâs not how it fucking works mate. Unless you change the way you discuss this, you need to stop responding to my comments, because youâre achieving nothing.
As Iâve clearly stated, no you cannot just stop using Googleâs services, because you need something else to use as a replacement. You need a new search engine. You need a new email provider. You need a new news source. You need a new webmail client. You need a new image host. You need a new calendar system. You need a new social network. You need a web host. You need a new way to get alerted for particular trending topics. You need a new voice assistant. You need a new online music shop. You need a new ebook shop. You need new dictionaries, flight finders, thesauruses, translators, Usenet archives, hotel finders, image searchers. You need a replacement for fucking YouTube! You need new office tools, a new blog platform, a new note-taking service. You need a new web host, a new domain registrar. You need new CDNs, new CAPTCHA providers. You need to replace Google Maps! You need to replace Android! You need a new web browser.
You need a new solution for casting media from your mobile devices to your TV. You need a new widely accepted mobile phone NFC payment system. You need replacements for every single one of Googleâs services we use. If you interpret âreplace Googleâs servicesâ as âreplace Gmail and Google searchâ then yeah, itâs fairly straightforward, although itâs still many many hours and a lot of money and effort to switch email providers. But Google provides waaaaaay more than Gmail and Google search.
Nobody is suggesting anyone is an automaton with no autonomous thinking. Again, youâre just abusing thought-terminating cliches. You canât say anything of substance, so you just resort to insulting me. People act naively all the time, that doesnât make them automatons.
There are people that are not intelligent enough to understand why losing their privacy is bad. There are people that are too naive to see that losing their privacy could hurt them. There are people that are just too busy to focus on something like privacy when they have lots of other more urgent things to do deal with in their lives. There are people that intelligently disagree that it is an issue.
Youâre not doing any of those. Youâre not saying privacy isnât an issue, youâre not arguing itâs not an issue. Youâre just accusing me of calling everyone else unintelligent. Iâm not falling for that. If you want to argue the point, argue it. Donât just call others patronising.
If you think that loss of privacy cannot have negative consequences then you need to provide an argument as to why you think that way. âYou are being alarmistâ is not an argument. Itâs a baseless accusation. I do not think I am being alarmist, clearly, and calling me alarmist isnât going to change my point of view. If you actually gave a reason as to why you think that loss of privacy isnât a big issue, then you might convince others.
Just accusing others of being patronising, or of circlejerking, or of being alarmist: these are not arguments.
Nobody reads or agrees to the terms of service or privacy policy of any of Googleâs services. Terms of service are not legally binding. Theyâre clickwrap nonsense. Half of the terms wouldnât be enforceable even if they were explicitly acknowledged and agreed to by consumers, like binding arbitration agreements. They could put âyou agree to give your firstborn child to Googleâ and it wouldnât suddenly become legally binding. They can say âwe take no responsibility for any privacy breachesâ in their agreements (they do) and they donât become legally binding.
The idea that privacy isnât an issue because people âagreeâ to it when they agree to the terms of service isnât something the companies themselves would even bother to claim! Itâs a ridiculous argument.
Also, having access to a âprivacy check upâ page to review your privacy settings has absolutely nothing to do with whether people are dependent on Googleâs services. It has nothing to do with whether peoplesâ privacy has been gradually eroded over time either. The whole point of the parable of the frog is that the frog is perfectly aware of the current temperature, but that the change in temperature is so gradual that thereâs no one point where the frog decides itâs got too hot and jumps out.
Literally the whole point of the story of the frog in boiling water is that people will accept things if theyâre introduced gradually and often wonât accept the same things introduced immediately. People would not accept this loss of privacy if it had all happened overnight, but they do accept it because theyâve gradually got used to it over time, and as they get used to it the companies push a little further every time.
I have no idea why you think that being able to see Googleâs âprivacy check upâ page puts a dent in any of that. Itâs completely unrelated to the idea of gradual loss of privacyâŠ