War was the one thing the US was good at, now they have nothing of value left for the rest of the world.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

US is good at pumping infinite money into the military. But they definitely aren’t “good” at war.

Ah, that’s where DuckDuckGo is being particular unhelpful.

You can read Boost’s privacy policy by going to:

Settings > Privacy Policy

Which takes you to: https://www.iubenda.com/privacy-policy/16063183

It mentions that Boost uses:

• Firebase Crashlytics https://firebase.google.com/docs/crashlytics

• Firebase Remote Config https://firebase.google.com/docs/remote-config

These are standard tools used by developers. They’re not advertising networks, they aren’t selling your data. There’s nothing nefarious about them. You can follow those links to learn more about them.

Firebase is owned by Google and these API are hosted under google domains:

• firebaselogging-pa.googleapis.com
• crashlyticsreports-pa.googleapis.com

So I can see why DuckDuckGo is labelling them as Google but it’s a little misleading.

Which companies is the App Tracking Protection recording Boost connecting to?

A screenshot of the app was what I meant. But after posting that I tried it out myself (see my other reply).

I was kinda disappointed DuckDuckGo didn’t give any meaningful insight. It looks like it’s basically just guessing what the trackers may be collecting based on domains connected to.

As mentioned in my other reply I’m certain the trackers recorded are actually from opening websites using the in-app browser, not from Boost itself.

After a little experimenting I believe that what you’re seeing are tracking attempts from websites using the in-app browser.

I didn’t see a single tracking attempt when using Boost except when using the in-app browser.

If you click a link to http://amazon.com/ and it loads inside Boost then DuckDuckGo records the trackers that the Web page loads as coming from Boost.

I recommend instead using an external browser:

Settings > General > Default Browser > select “Open Externally”

If you share examples of the blocked tracking attempts we might be able to make sense of it. Without seeing it this just sounds like another unevidenced smear.

Didn’t even need remote version control. All it required was essential files version controlled in the local folder.

I think they opted not to make any cuts to NASA. It would be a conflict of interest if they did. In the sense that Elon Musk wants them to keep giving spacex lucrative contracts and they can’t do that if they don’t have piles of money

Your comment “This question does not belong here.” currently has 22 downvotes and 1 upvote.

To me that suggests your view is in the minority.

There was a discussion about “ghost communities” a few days ago:

https://feddit.uk/post/24499702

People are quick to create communities but they sit unused, attract few posts and fewer subscribers. Often the mods move on so even if new posts were to appear they’d be unmoderated.

The simple reason for that is there isn’t enough demand. Lemmy is still small it’s too early to be spinning out ever more narrowed niche communities. If you think content belongs elsewhere then report it to the mods and let them decide. If they see a surge in unwanted Q&A topics then they can amend posting guidelines to direct people elsewhere or to a Q&A thread or something.

Creating a new community for one question is insane.

If there’s a surge in questions not relevant to 90% of readers then sure but Lemmy isn’t there yet

Pretty sure the staff are just giving guests the figurines and then management are surprised that guests thought they were gifts.

Is there an easy way of seeing the preceding emails in a threaded format?

I read some posted yesterday that were related but it’s damn confusing whether the conversation has been active in between?

https://feddit.uk/comment/15366243

@[email protected]

This answer is probably the best here. It’s concise and answers your questions in a reasonably unbiased way.

A lot of the other answers are dripping with personal bias and a few verging on conspiracy.

understand what is the common idea about the fact that systemd could be a critical part of Linux which is in the hands of IBM and Microsoft and what this means for the linux community overall.

Either nobody cares, or it’s too much complottistic to be real.

I wasn’t familiar with the word complotism but yes I think this is the case - It’s just an unsubstantiated conspiracy.

Even if were true that Microsoft had taken over systemd by stealth. What is the harm? If they suddenly do something malicious with it then all the distros will just fork systemd and continue without the malicious elements.

I’ve read the update you made to your original post.

So I now understand your concern is Microsoft control systemd and the proof of that is that the project lead works for Microsoft? Is that the only proof?

I think it’s quite a grasp. There is no money in open source so the developers need jobs. In this case the developer happens to be employed by Microsoft.

I was impressed they resisted calling it micro$oft. That’s the usual sign of somebody adopting the tribal views of others.

In that case why not share your opinion?

Instead you’ve claimed you’re neutral and shared links to the views of 15 other people.

You haven’t even provided any context on these articles. Or quoted anything from them that you are concerned about.

Everything about this screams you’re asking in bad faith just hoping to waste people’s time or start an argument.

You provided 15 links.

Are you seriously expecting somebody to walk you through each one?

You’re claiming not to care either way about systemd and yet you’ve provided 15 sources against it and apparently done zero research into why it has been so widely adopted.

So, you don’t know Python at all AND you don’t know Bash, but you feel compelled to talk about how one is so much better than the other?

I have plenty of experience with Bash, hence why I was eager to question the implication that bash was less complicated than other solutions.

You’re correct that I don’t know python, but I do have plenty of familiarity with PHP, JS, C#, and Rust. From my experience with those languages I guessed that python probably has similar libraries for making API calls.

Thanks for providing the actual examples. Looking at them I’m curious if you still think I’m wrong?

In my opinion the bash is much more difficult to understand than the python and therefore it’s more likely for bugs to creep in. For example I think curl_exit_code=$? should be called immediately after the curl command as the way it’s presently written isn’t it capturing the exit code of the tail command?

You’ve explicitly called --connect-timeout and --max-time. imo it only comes from experience that you need to add these options. I had a script that had been funcitoning without issue for months then suddenly started to hang and it was a while before I figured out that the defaults for curl had no timeout so it didn’t gracefully fail like I would expect.

These are the kind of traps that I fall into all the time with bash and it’s painful to debug.

response=$(
  curl \
    --silent \
    --write-out "\n%{http_code}" \
    --connect-timeout "$CONNECT_TIMEOUT" \
    --max-time "$MAX_TIME" \
    "$API_URL"
)

http_body=$(echo "$response" | sed '$d')        
http_code=$(echo "$response" | tail -n1)

curl_exit_code=$?