Threads for afronski

    1. 1

      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?

      1. 2

        Thank you for your kind words 🙏

        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, it’s about 120 LOC JavaScript.

        I’ll 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, I’m 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).

        1. https://github.com/200ok-ch/organice/blob/master/src/actions/sync_backend.js
        2. https://github.com/200ok-ch/organice/blob/master/src/sync_backend_clients/dropbox_sync_backend_client.js#L159-L166
        1. 2

          Got it, however, there are some existing Git clients for browser/node environment like Isomorphic-Git. [1] I’d 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, doesn’t matter), and I do not have any incentive to use Dropbox.

          1. https://github.com/isomorphic-git/isomorphic-git
          1. 2

            From a quick glance, isomorphic-git looks nice! I’d be happy to support you if you have any questions whilst creating a PR for integration.

            NB: I’ve 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.

            1. https://docs.nextcloud.com/server/stable/admin_manual/configuration_files/external_storage_configuration_gui.html?highlight=google#available-storage-backends
    2. 1

      From what I’ve seen most object stores other than the big 3 don’t actually replicate across data centers.

      1. 1

        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 I’m not completely clear in my mind what the usecase for this is

        1. 2

          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.

    3. 0

      Please tell me this is a parody.

      1. 1

        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 I’d be grateful.

    4. 32

      It took until I reached the end of the article for me to realize that the title wasn’t sarcastic. It’s not the first time I’ve seen it but it’s a reminder that this feature is simultaneously fantastic and horrifying.

      1. 5

        I didn’t even realize until I read your comment. I skimmed it, saw the screenshot of Takeout, and was like “ah yes, another guide for moving off of Google services…” and closed the tab.

      2. 2

        Not sure why are you calling this as horrifying. Is it because google have access to all your data? In Btwn I’m the author of this blog.

        1. 5

          Is it because google have access to all your data

          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.

          1. 4

            Mobile phone companies had that data for a decade longer than Google. Don’t think that if we got Google to stop collecting it somehow the problem of tracking has been solved.

            1. 1

              I’m far away from justifying Google, but there are two problems with your reasoning:

              • You cannot see what the mobile phone providers have on you.
              • You are silently assuming that ISPs / mobile phone providers cannot cooperate, e.g., with malicious government and its services to spy on people like opposition or political enemies.

              Yes, the latter happened in the past in various countries. So pointing into G. is plain cherry-picking.

              1. 2

                Yup, that’s 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.

                That’s just example with gov, and I’m not touching even the topic when those companies itself are abusing that.

      3. 2

        Regarding the detailed log of your activity, have a look at this video from Forbrukerrådet Norge:

        “Google manipulates users into constant tracking” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIq17DeAc1M

    5. 3

      A more accurate title would have been “Thank you Google for sharing some of my data with me.” It’s horrifying because it gives a glimpse of how much power they hold over their users, and how easily this power can be abused.

      1. 5

        There’s 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 it’s been gradual. It’s the old fable of the frog in the pot of boiling water all over again.

        1. 2

          Imho it is also related to the massive shift in user trust in Google we have seen lately, when the “Don’t Be Evil” 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.

          1. 1

            Somewhat humorously modified into: “Don’t, Be Evil”

          2. 10

            Stockholm syndrome refers to “feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim towards a captor”.

            If you haven’t heard someone use ‘Stockholm syndrome’ more generally than actually literally implying that someone actually literally has proper Stockholm syndrome, then you need to get out more.

            To think that a tech company (Google in this case), that creates products one freely chooses to use, is a “captor” that somehow “takes hostage of” or “kidnaps” its users is exactly what it means to be alarmist.

            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 can’t 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 don’t have to be chained up to be held captive.

            And people don’t 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.

            1. 0

              It’s not alarmist. It’s alarming.

              someone who exaggerates a danger and so causes needless worry or panic.

              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 ‘journalism’ to the widespread use of personal-information-harvesting social media platforms.

              And the worry and panic around the issue is not needless. It’s sorely needed. There’s a general sense of apathy around this very important issue. Not being apathetic is not the same as being ‘alarmist’.

              is your criterion to arrive at the conclusion that something is a “captor” (be it literal or metaphorical) that somehow “takes hostage of” (be it in literal or metaphorical sense) or “kidnaps” (be it in literal or metaphorical sense) its users

              I suspect you genuinely aren’t comprehending what ‘literal’ and ‘metaphorical’ 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 it’s gradual they haven’t really noticed and don’t really care when they’re told.

              And as a matter of related interest, it would not take me “considerable time, effort and money” should I ever wish to extricate myself from the Google ecosystem (indeed I’ve done so once, along with extricating myself from the Apple ecosystem, in my life before).

              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. It’s 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.

              1. 1

                Oh? So how do you reconcile your “Nobody is literally suggesting Google is capturing or taking hostage of or kidnapping anyone” with your earlier “Google absolutely takes its users hostage.” (if it is neither literal nor metaphorical use of the word “hostage”)?

                But it is the metaphorical use of the word hostage I’m using.

                This is a such a patronizing view you hold towards those who do not share your beliefs and feelings on matters of privacy. One can always use Google’s “Privacy Check-up” webpage to review what is being shared, and then adjust the level of data being sent to Google. If still not satisfied, one can then stop using Google’s services. It really is as simple as that. Just where do the “irrational positive feelings” come from? Created out of thin air to justify the alarmist feelings of the protagonist, per chance?

                It’s 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 ‘circlejerk’. If you view anyone as naive, you’re automatically just being ‘patronising’. If you’re concerned about anything, all of a sudden you’re being ‘alarmist’.

                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, that’s not how it fucking works mate. Unless you change the way you discuss this, you need to stop responding to my comments, because you’re achieving nothing.

                As I’ve clearly stated, no you cannot just stop using Google’s 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 Google’s services we use. If you interpret ‘replace Google’s services’ as ‘replace Gmail and Google search’ then yeah, it’s fairly straightforward, although it’s 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.

                1. 1

                  No, it is. If you do not see that automatically suggesting that others are less intelligent, and more of automatons with hardly any autonomous thinking (in order to further your privacy-focused agenda), it would do nothing but indicate that you hold little regard for your fellow human beings.

                  Nobody is suggesting anyone is an automaton with no autonomous thinking. Again, you’re just abusing thought-terminating cliches. You can’t say anything of substance, so you just resort to insulting me. People act naively all the time, that doesn’t 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.

                  You’re not doing any of those. You’re not saying privacy isn’t an issue, you’re not arguing it’s not an issue. You’re just accusing me of calling everyone else unintelligent. I’m not falling for that. If you want to argue the point, argue it. Don’t just call others patronising.

                  Just because your thought terminates upon reading my words that does not make it a cliché. I even went on to elaborate more than once as to why I call such vocal privacy advocacy to be alarmist. If you still don’t understand, you can locate an extreme version of this from a comment in the HN thread I originally linked to

                  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. ‘You are being alarmist’ is not an argument. It’s a baseless accusation. I do not think I am being alarmist, clearly, and calling me alarmist isn’t going to change my point of view. If you actually gave a reason as to why you think that loss of privacy isn’t 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.

                  Even so, that does not make the user a “hostage” (be it literally or metaphorically) – indicating so is a product of alarmist thinking – of the company, as they freely signed up for the service, while freely accepting the terms of services and privacy policy,

                  Nobody reads or agrees to the terms of service or privacy policy of any of Google’s services. Terms of service are not legally binding. They’re clickwrap nonsense. Half of the terms wouldn’t be enforceable even if they were explicitly acknowledged and agreed to by consumers, like binding arbitration agreements. They could put ‘you agree to give your firstborn child to Google’ and it wouldn’t suddenly become legally binding. They can say ‘we take no responsibility for any privacy breaches’ in their agreements (they do) and they don’t become legally binding.

                  The idea that privacy isn’t an issue because people ‘agree’ to it when they agree to the terms of service isn’t something the companies themselves would even bother to claim! It’s a ridiculous argument.

                  and furthermore had access to “Privacy Check-up” to review the current privacy settings which would put a dent in your “old fable of the frog in the pot of boiling water” analogy.

                  Also, having access to a ‘privacy check up’ page to review your privacy settings has absolutely nothing to do with whether people are dependent on Google’s services. It has nothing to do with whether peoples’ 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 there’s no one point where the frog decides it’s 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 they’re introduced gradually and often won’t 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 they’ve 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 Google’s ‘privacy check up’ page puts a dent in any of that. It’s completely unrelated to the idea of gradual loss of privacy…

  • 26

    Painting everything concerned with Google’s blatant disregard for privacy as ‘alarmist’ is not okay.

  • 2

    Endless repetitions – 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 (don’t repeat yourself) principle.

    Is this something you can get with node anchors?

    1. 1

      Great question! I believe you can’t, I’ve 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.

  • 2

    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, what’s to stop them waking up tomorrow to quickly build an in-house duplicate?

    1. 2

      Nothing. ;) If AWS will build something better, that’s a great thing - way to go!

      It’s 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.