You're significantly overestimating the amount of pull that type of person has in the US anymore, while simultaneously dramatically (I can only assume willfully) misquoting that bible verse.
"That type of person" accounts for some substantial fraction of the vaccine-hesitant population that accounts for freely available covid-19 vaccines for everyone age 12+ in the US but only 51% of the population being fully vaccinated[1].
So, even if you consider it absurd, this particular belief IS widely-enough held to influence behavior and public policy in the US.
The vaccine-hesitant people I know are waiting for the live attenuated virus and/or FDA approval...
Please show me where it lists the reasons for not vaccinating on the page you linked, as I only see numbers on whether or not people are vaccinated. As it stands, your claim has zero statistical evidence to back it up. In fact, your link has zero relevance to your claim in any way.
Because many users are on tinder just for validation, and getting matches makes them feel good. They're willing to pay for it, so Match is willing to take their money at the cost of UX
Sometimes people want to match with someone in the town they're visiting (or moving to) soon.
Other times, people in poorer countries are trying to match with people in richer countries. Think of Tinder as acting as a broker in a situation that sometimes people call "mail order bride."
I have to agree. This is a clever way to catch criminals that doesn't particularly harm non-criminals. I'll take this over the anti-encryption campaign the FBI has been on for the past 10 or 20 years.
> I'll take this over the anti-encryption campaign the FBI has been on for the past 10 or 20 years.
The problem is that these things go hand in hand. The criminals wont buy from the poisoned channel if they can get the security they need from the standard consumer models. If you go to T-mobile, and you get the option everyone gets and it is end-to-end encrypted properly and there aren't any remote exploits then the criminals will just use that.
Non-criminal privacy focused people are much more likely to use standard devices with publicly known apps such as Signal. You couldn't buy this phone in stores, it was specifically distributed on the black market.
It wasn't a good choice if you're privacy-conscious anyway, since there was no source code available, so you couldn't check it actually does what it claimed.
> Innocent (and clueless) people seeking privacy had their privacy violated by this action.
You state this as fact without any proof. The AFP and FBI assert that 100% of the users were engaged in criminal activity. Given the distribution method, which included vetting by a known criminal organization, the requirement to have an account created by administrators that are again known to be criminal, and the ability to only contact others on the same network, I tend to believe that assertion until I see proof otherwise.
> The AFP and FBI assert that 100% of the users were engaged in criminal activity.
Don't take cop statements at face value unless they're proven in open court.
If you're not familiar with the US policies around such things, lying is part of the job for police there. Most cases end up in plea bargains, which allows prosecutors and cops to avoid having to actually prove anything in court to secure a guilty verdict as part of a plea agreement.
Very few police accusations actually end up being proven with evidence.
Be that as it may, they've still offered more evidence than you. I don't take assertions from random HN commenters without any supporting evidence at face value either.
What's wrong with the feedback they get through traditional channels, though? There's already a GitHub issues page and the forums. There's no need to exfiltrate user data to figure out something they're already telling you.
They're looking for things like "how much usage does X thing get?", and this is hard to get from users for various reasons. You need lots of fine-grained feedback like menu clicks and things like that, you can't discover whether a button is easily discoverable from GitHub issues.
One way to do this is to make it a part of a beta program rather than baked into the main app. That makes it slightly more manageable for the developers too.
That's true, but I don't know how many would bother installing the beta, especially given that most distributions use stable. This would be the same as opt-in telemetry.
Windows Insider already had over 10 million users 4 years ago[0]. I'd say that approach works well enough. I myself used it on Windows Phone 8, because some upcoming updates came with cool features and being in the Insider program gave me earlier access.
I also used Firefox Nightly for a while because of the massive performance improvements at that time. As Audacity claims they're doing it for UX improvements, it would be easy to get frequent Audacity users interested in a beta build featuring tracking but also all the improvements being tested.
Github is in no way something that can be (or rather: is) used by anyone outside the tech bubble. Audacity however very much is. It is used by a lot of people that will never write a line of code and don't care (and shouldn't have to) about what github even is.
As someone who has done a little support work: The problem is that those channels require users to describe the problem to you. Many users are surprisingly bad at doing this.
It is possible to create opt-in, on-demand reporting tools.
Someone I know well created one such, based on a common reporting template of a major Free Software project, after realising that the template itself was based on information readily obtained from the system. Fleshing that out a bit resulted in an automatic syste self-documentation tool. They'd introduced it to the support group at one former company, and informal feedback several years later was that this was the principle diagnostic utility for the team. There was no ongoing telemetry, merely a "here's the script, run it and send us the output". (If necessary, the output could have been automatically emailed or transmitted by other means.)
There are now several of these, the "About This Mac" utility on OSX, as well as several for Linux, of which I'm aware.
No, they're not app-specific diagnostics, but precisely the same principles apply.
I would argue in OSS it doesn't work well, just because volunteers are going through and triaging most of the worthless reports (if you're lucky!) out it's still boiling the ocean, it's hard to put "this sucks and fuck you" on a backlog.
You can't really compare unstructured feedback in a forum / issue tracker to getting detailed Sentry data tagged with a version number and other metadata. Seeing quick spikes of issues of a new version at a glance is valuable data to have.
