Didn’t work. Same issue after.

deleted by creator

https://youtu.be/s3Z2MlJLd24

Same in wrestling.

I think it’s called selective service

Use a timestamp link for now, if it gets a different time than requested, there’s an ad.

I’m sure some algorithm could be written to beat it. Still crappy overall but figured they’d do this sooner or later.

Sponsorblock, return YouTube dislikes and more customization.

In theory this could be beaten by using a link to a timestamp at 1 second in. If it starts at 0, it’s an ad.

SmartTube on TV, Revanced on my phone, and the first party website on my computer.

modprobe this

I pay for premium… but also like my sponsorblock… and 3rd party clients. Let me have it all momma Google.

Kind of sounds like a landline

As a kid this would have been fun for me. I think y’all are looking at this a bit off.

I have been so it does exist. However I’ve never been to Greenland, so Greenland may not exist.

IIUC it wouldn’t be able to be automatically started then, right? I mean I guess you could drag it to startup but it would need the password to start. From a security minded perspective that’s good, but from a user perspective kind of sucks. I already unlocked the computer: as a user id just want it to ‘work’.

There is always a tug of war between best level of security and user experience. I guess the best security is to get rid of the human element though… so eh.

Always forced to foreground makes it even less convenient and kind of odd. I dig the status tray control though. I don’t see this functionality as being useful if you have to remember to turn it on. If I remember what I was doing enough to turn it on, I’d write down what I’d forget. To me it’s about allowing the user to pick their comfort level.

I figure the cryptfs could be a bitlocker volume with a different key than the base C drives key to get similar protection. In theory it could also be based on the C drives bitlocker for a less secure, but still hardware level secured middle ground. Id have to think about it more.

The other stuff mentioned is basically what it does locally in terms of OCR and recognition… just with proprietary local recipes.

Thanks for your thoughts.

GDPR has little to do with this. People use site cookies to remember sessions and not have to login again, etc. I’d guess most browser users use and want to use this functionality. If you’re fully opting out to not even have persistent sessions, I’m guessing you’re in the far minority of users here.

I’m not aware of any non-trivial readily available built-in encryption for cookies. There are easy to find libraries that exist to just pull out cookies (stored locally including session tokens).

To clear up a bit more misinformation from your response: this is an offline feature. The data doesn’t go back to Microsoft. It works even if your computer is disconnected from the internet. If you consider their word to be a lie on this part, that’s you’re right to believe, but until proven, isn’t a fact.

I tend to agree with a lot of what is said here. Though it is (assuming they’re honest) local only to be clear.

If it was an opt in feature with robust configurations including encrypting the db based off your login session and was auto locked up on log off/reboot (until login again): is that good enough, or would folks then say we should assume the account is also compromised?

I’m trying to disambiguate between generalize ai dislike, Microsoft dislike, windows dislike, distrusts, etc. to consider a world where this exists in Windows and people who would use the feature would feel comfortable

In other words, consider an app that did the same thing. What security constraints would be expected?

So if they had a ui with buttons to ‘pause for X length (could be forever)’, buttons to 'forget last X length (once again could be forever), but everything else stayed the same, would it be acceptable?

Like I’m genuinely curious here.

Iirc chrome stores your local cookies/session in a place malware could also attack. Probably the same idea for other browsers.

I’m not sure I fully understand the issue here. If we’re ok with that info being trivially retrievable by a bad actor, why isn’t this ok?

Like I get you may not like it, and it’s a target, but there are already lots of targets that have gotten a pass based on user permissions. Is it just the breadth of potential info? With the cookies you could potentially log into someone’s bank account.

The Sinatra estate probably doesn’t approve of this.