Netflix and spotify give me quick access to lot of content and I value it. I don’t care what software gives me this content.
With messaging it’s different. Transferring messages is relatively simple topic to do as a software. But the cost of running and maintaining it is hard and that’s what users don’t care.
I tried many things from Apache with mod_php, nginx with php-fpm, Roadrunner and Swoole.
Apache and nginx are both great, both have pros and cons, although I would go with nginx and fpm as my first choice.
Swoole is totally different approach as it runs php as standalone server in a loop, just like python for example. It is great if you serve api but it kills the benefit of having each request isolated as you would have with nginx or apache. So you need to care about memory leaks, db connection pools etc. Also Swoole docs was not great few months ago.
Roadrunner is kind of between apache/nginx and Swoole. It is a golang server that can execute php in workers. For each worker once php is loaded it will stay in memory and it is super fast. The only downside on this one is that Roadrunner is developed by mostly one guy and not much you can find on the internet. Also Roadrunner features set is IMO very narrowed into what the company behind it needs at the time. IMO there is no clear vision where this project is going.
I think he means C++ is 2x to 5x faster to run than Go. I saw many benchmarks and not sure if that is true though. Go is still one of the fastest out there.
That is already pretty fast, and I guess the difference in practical scenarios would be even smaller since external systems like DB's won't change their speed if you call them with another programming language and because production code is not always as optimized as benchmark code.
That is still not clear. Not everyone need to sign in so it could not be essential. It should ask when you want to login if you want to store a cookie or not.
An app like Yelp could claim that one of their essential features is to show you restaurants physically close to you, so location information is essential. They could claim that being able to recommend food based on your past searches is part of their core functionality, and that requires saving searches in cookies, or saving them on the server side with a fingerprint on your side.
You could argue that Yelp is only a yellow pages of restaurants and therefore no cookies are essential. Someone else could argue that they are much more than a yellow pages, that if they were only a yellow pages they would not be profitable and cease to exist, and that their core reason of existence is their recommendation engine. To that person, essential functionality would require more things to be stored.
Then there is a regulatory aspect. Some governments may require their companies to install trackers of sorts. Some governments just don't give a damn and let their companies do as they please. GDPR is not a universal law. It's an EU law. Nobody else has to follow it, and there is no way you'll convince every country in especially Asia, Africa, and South America to follow GDPR. A technological solution on the other hand can deal with the entire problem with a single software update, much more effectively than any legal route.
On a side note I was once able to get a very precise location even with permissions turned off, simply by virtue of 2 devices being on the same Wi-Fi network, the other device having given permissions.
For one they both appear to the outside as the same IPv4 address, and Wi-Fi doesn't travel that far so you can usually presume they are at the same location. There are other ways like having one device hog bandwidth in a slowly modulated fashion, and have the other device pick up on that modulation in streamed data.
This isn't related to the parent comments and I highly doubt any major apps actually implement this but just pointing out that such a side channel attack is possible.
> An app like Yelp could claim that one of their essential features is to show you restaurants physically close to you, so location information is essential.
They could claim that but it would not be relevant in law. The GDPR provides an exception for "strictly necessary" cookies only, as follows:
"This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service."
If I didn't explicitly request for Yelp to show me restaurants physically close to me, or to recommend food based on my past searches, then neither of these things are "strictly necessary" as defined by the GDPR and they can't store personal information about me regardless of what they claim.
Yeah, that's why it depends on the function of the website or app. If you need to sign in to access an app, and the session token is saved using a cookie, then it can be considered an essential cookie. But on a marketing website that doesn't have a login component then yes, you're right, logging in isn't required and so it's arguably a nonessential cookie.
Also, it says "Click to register" ... which I feel like I've already done. I think the wording should be revised to say something more like "Confirm your registration".
How do we know what is best for us? What and who should we believe? It kinds of remind me how Copernicus was banned centuries ago despite now we know he was closer to truth than anyone else. If we live at his times we would say he is crazy and certainly his YouTube channel would have to be deleted but why? I guess if someone is right, he will prove it eventually. Even if it sounds crazy but the person is determined we should have right to know it and decide if we agree. Why someone esle should decide for us what we can know.
One journalist tried and failed but I think two experts people working in concert might have a better chance. It would probably relate to tricking Amazon that you put an item back.
Yes. Of course it is. I think they are not stupid either and very well know that it will happen. The first on the market has to do the experiments to get it right.
There is no such a thing like plugin which can operate only on one website. Plugin in browser is like an app on Windows. Once you install it and run it, it can access anything.
I think the main problem these days is lack of understanding how computers and Internet work.
With messaging it’s different. Transferring messages is relatively simple topic to do as a software. But the cost of running and maintaining it is hard and that’s what users don’t care.