Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

mastodon.gamedev.place

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 413 posts

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#391

Post by rhn_mk1 »

evandale wrote: post #388
davidjfelix wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're selectively ignoring parts of the comment. "Darwinian opportunity ... [which is] self-solving" is clearly referring to the death of a person who blindly followed GPS directions for a mis-configured app. GP was saying that anyone who dies because an app told them wrong information was not "fit" (darwinian fitness) for survival. Expressing no remorse or desire to prevent preventable death with the justif…

Am I high right now? I think you're selectively ignoring parts of the comment. It's 13 words: "This seems like a learning opportunity. Or a Darwinian opportunity. Either way, self-solving." You're turning the comment into 3 words: "Darwinian opportunity ... [which is] self-solving" Small reminder that on HN you are supposed to steelman comments when you reply, not strawman. Clearly those 3 words refers to the death o…

> As an applied science, thus, the practice of eugenics referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia.

Spektorowski, Alberto; Ireni-Saban, Liza (2013). Politics of Eugenics: Productionism, Population, and National Welfare

https://web.archive.org/web/20211019203011/https://books.goo...

(emphasis mine)

After birth for non-sterile individuals is before birth for their progeny.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#392

Post by newaccount74 »

kilolima wrote: post #197
mormegil wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> apps could not require users to have “an account” in order to run There is some big qualification missing or I don't understand what does that even mean. How could a banking app run without an account? An online game? The Twitter app nowadays? Dropbox/Nextcloud/...? Etc. Yeah, I agree that for a lot of apps, requiring a account is just a marketing gimmick, but I don't think such a general rule could work.

For example, Gaia Maps. It's just a navigation app using publicly funded USGS or crowd sourced base maps, but by switching over to a user account requirement, they can con people into paying a monthly subscription for map "updates". If you're going to rip people off with "software as a service" then you need to require an account.

Just because maps are based on public data doesn't mean that making them doesn't cost money.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#393

Post by newaccount74 »

MBCook wrote: post #389
saagarjha wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but what if you don’t want to use Google Photos for that?

Genuine question: what else does it do? I thought that was all it was for.

Answered upthread:

> view photos already saved in the cloud

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#394

Post by froggit »

Cyberdog wrote: post #332
devilbunny wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me push back against that a bit. My phone is not a fashion piece. AFAICT the blue bubbles will show up with an old 4S just as well as with a 14 Pro Max. I have an iPhone - which I got after many years with Android - because iMessage is an essential app for me. I live in the US, so my business partners do not have [choice of alternative messaging app] installed and they are not going to install it just for me. I'm…

> Or how Apple is being a gigantic bunch of assholes by not using something other than vanilla SMS if you're not an iMessage user. What alternative would you suggest? And is that alternative as universal as SMS?

RCS

It's still getting rolled out a lot of places. Google sees it as the successor to SMS and it's built into native messaging apps. I recently saw cross-carrier support get enabled locally and that made it universal enough that so far anyone I message that's running Android is already connected via RCS.

Apple intentionally doesn't support RCS in order to keep imessages from interoperating with android.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#396

Post by fennecfoxy »

I think the more important thing is coming up with a better way to do these things _without_ permissions.

The core issue of permissions systems in my mind is the user. All of the pop-up permissions boxes on phones are really nice, it's helpful that Android now removes permissions from apps if they're unused.

But that doesn't stop the average user from just hitting "yes" to permissions without reading them because they just want to use the app they just installed. It's exactly the same problem as nobody reading Ts&Cs etc. Our species has an apathy for this stuff.

We should really just be sandboxing the shit out of everything. On Android (as an example) if I install a file manager app, I can only give it access to _everything_. But also as a user, even if I could give it granular access, it's easier to just give it access to everything because it's...easier.

The location pop-up is nice, I usually hit "only while using the app" but I'm sure plenty of other people give their apps access to fine location data at all times. Is this a platform problem? Maybe Apple is right in being so strict about usage of data, even though privacy is just marketing/a selling point to them (I laugh if people think the world's richest company _genuinely_ cares about privacy on a human rather than financial level).

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#397

Post by fennecfoxy »

ryandrake wrote: post #90
mormegil wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> apps could not require users to have “an account” in order to run There is some big qualification missing or I don't understand what does that even mean. How could a banking app run without an account? An online game? The Twitter app nowadays? Dropbox/Nextcloud/...? Etc. Yeah, I agree that for a lot of apps, requiring a account is just a marketing gimmick, but I don't think such a general rule could work.

Good question! We actually asked Apple exactly this when appealing the AppStore de-listing. How come others can require an account and we can't? What was it about our app that made us have to spend the engineering effort to add a guest login (this was a disingenuous argument that I advised against, since we deliberately spent engineering effort to require the login)? Their response, not the exact wording since it was…

One time Apple asked us why we needed bluetooth permission for an app that had the singular purpose of using bluetooth "iBeacons".

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#398

Post by fennecfoxy »

yesimahuman wrote: post #324
floomk wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing first party apps with third party apps. Also you're forgetting that this is a forum which is heavily biased to developers. I use Android because my phone isn't a fashion piece. Some of my users sadly use iOS. They want the software on the devices they purchased and own, but Apple is preventing us from delivering this to them unless we do exactly as Apple commands. So in the end everyone loses, except…

You’re being downvoted (clearly by multiple people) for having a valid opposing opinion in a subjective debate. Hate to see that kind of behavior on HN. Upvoted you to balance it out.

This is why upvote/downvote systems are trash.

Sure, they keep some actually bad opinions out, but they also keep correct but unpopular opinions out.

The Sun revolves around the Earth! Downvote Galileo!

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#399

Post by kerkeslager »

charcircuit wrote: post #343
kerkeslager wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you are a platform owner it is important that you evaluate the needs of all stakeholders and not just the needs of the users of the platforms. I disagree. The literal entire purpose of every single non-user entity involved in this situation is to serve users, and if it's not serving users, then that's a systemic failure. If corporations want a place at the table, they should be serving users, and if they can't…

>they should be serving users Bringing content users want to watch is serving users. >DRM should be illegal, period Why? It is preventing users from doing illegal things. Saying that DRM should be removed so that users can make illegal copies of the media they are watching is not a strong argument to me. >Our economy should be designed to serve people, not corporations People make content and people want to be able t…

> Why?

Read the rest of my post.

> It is preventing users from doing illegal things.

It's not, clearly. Search your favorite DRM'ed TV show name followed by "torrent S01E03" (to indicate season 1 episode 3) and see how well that DRM is working.

> Saying that DRM should be removed so that users can make illegal copies of the media they are watching is not a strong argument to me.

I didn't say that.

DRM should be removed so that users can access content they've paid for. DRM nearly always effects legitimate users.

> People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed. Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators which in why making it possible to secure content is such a valuable idea.

It's not a valuable idea, because it's an impossible idea. If you can view the content, you can pirate it. Period. DRM has done absolutely nothing to stop pirates and has consistently harmed users.

It's worth noting that content creators are often totally on board with releasing without DRM: it's content distributors who are worried about this, generally.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#400

Post by kerkeslager »

charcircuit wrote: post #372
smoldesu wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed. Tough shit. Copyright is entirely arbitrary, and it's bad actors have ruined it for everyone else. DRM will be evil for as long as "buying isn't "owning"; until then piracy will be strictly superior. > Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators And my kitchen knives by default make it way too…

>Copyright is entirely arbitrary Even if copyright wasn't a thing some creators do not want their work to be copied. >And my kitchen knives by default make it way too easy to violate homicide law If kitchen knives were made impossible to use for homicide, but could be made for the same exact price in the same amount of time and were just as effective at everything else there would be no reason for people to sell homi…

> If kitchen knives were made impossible to use for homicide, but could be made for the same exact price in the same amount of time and were just as effective at everything else there would be no reason for people to sell homicide capable knives.

If content were made impossible to pirate, but could be made for the same exact price in the same amount of time and were just as effective at everything else there would be no reason for people to sell piracy capable content.

But, homicide-incapable knives and piracy-incapable content aren't real. They're a fantasy, which does not exist.

All DRM does is make it harder for legitimate users to access content they have paid for.

Post reply on HN