Why do companies keep on treating employees like they do ? Just read this article.

Am I wrong or LLMs are text not fact generators ?

"We" ask them to generate text that includes the facts.

> Your server will be secure because it's obscure. But it's still very likely to become a target for autistic geniuses.

Ah, delving into the abyss of ancient servers, are we? Well, if there's one thing that tickles the fancy of the 'Atypical Geniuses Club,' it's a relic from the digital crypt. Count us in, presently inspecting the code armed with nothing but floppy disks and a dial-up connection!

Another question I have is: "If governments have nothing to hide (apparently we don’t so they shouldn’t, no ? They said to me they are my equal and truthful protectors), shouldn’t they be legally obligated to warn users when their data/info have been requested by any entity ?"

There is indeed an obligation to notify under Swiss law.

Not true, disabling 2G is already present in iOS in Lockdown Mode.

Disabling 2G has been supported in Android since 12 - this is talking about the additional features on top of that.

Seems to be up to the manufacturers and/or the carriers. Samsung doesn't have this for example even on my S21 running Android 13.

Why shouldn't you be able to disable 2G in normal mode?

But you have to enable the whole thing right?

I like some of the settings of lockdown mode, and I wish you could enable them one by one. Enabling the entire lockdown mode is a bit too much

How? iOS 17 is not released yet.

Lockdown mode is iOS 16.

I think the Lockdown Mode will disable 2G only starting with iOS 17.

The press release [1] doesn't mention 2G directly but only "safer wireless connectivity defaults" but FastCo [2] is more direct "with iOS 17, Apple is not only beefing up Lockdown Mode (by blocking the iPhone from connecting to 2G cellular networks and from auto-joining insecure wireless networks) but bringing Lockdown Mode to the Apple Watch".

[1]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/apple-announces-power... [2]: https://www.fastcompany.com/90904197/apple-ios-17-craig-fede...

Funny how the article was published on one of the most esthetically neutral website I have ever seen.

Can we at least add this meta tag in the head of the document ? I don’t know if it is considered styling but it is not css. My eyes will thank you:

  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" />

Source: https://stackoverflow.com/a/39239194

It is considered CSS [1], which makes sense to me as this relates to styling. What has never made sense in my mind is to have completely unstyled pages rendered with microscopic fonts on smartphones. Doing so for old sites that, at the beginning of the mobile revolution, assumed on their CSS sheets 1024px wide screens is reasonable (though still debatable). Not so for CSS-free pages, whether they were authored in 1991 or in 2023.

I'm sorry if I got carried away, I wasn't replying to you in this last part :) For the record, I would also make this exception, though it would be neat to be able to select those without even the meta viewport tag.

[1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-viewport/

No problem, really. Thanks for the correction. This is indeed css. I must have automatically associated meta tags to non css data only. And I totally agree with you concerning the microscopic font and the meta tag.

I don't understand why it has to be added to every single page. Is there a reason this is not implemented as a default browser behaviour for devices where it matters (i.e. mobile phones)?

That'd force a pretty substantial breaking change to a lot of sites that don't currently use the tag.

If the webpage has no CSS at all then nothing will be broken, either adding it internally or pretending that it's included.

Webdevs can always say those aren't their target audience.

All you need is initial-scale=1.0, and width is redundant.

I discuss this in more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36112889

That applies only to Safari. How about other browsers?