That's half the equation. The other half is the reliability and security of wifi, which is less than that of ethernet for people without physical access to my wall innards
Reliability of wifi is not as good I guess, although these days it is extremely good for decent devices. For poor quality devices, I have also heard of PoE routers blowing ports and devices that don't work properly.
Is security of wifi an actual practical concern? I've not heard of it since WPA2.
For average residential user, even most hobbyist / enthusiast, I doubt those things will matter. Almost everybody who wants extremely fast reliable wired connectivity will be much better off using fiber, and using wifi for cameras and automation and streaming and other such things. Getting power to where you need it is not the difficult part, especially if you're pulling wires anyway, which is why PoE has always been fairly niche.
Pretty niche requirement for personal user though. Protection against eavesdropping is the main thing required, and PoE is actually much worse for that than WiFi is you have any drops in less secured ares (e.g., outdoor cameras).
HackerNews users used to be the type that would do the scraping, so they could Hack the data into whatever format or integration they desired.
It's unfortunate to see folks here who don't support that – interoperability is at the heart of the Hacker Ethic. LinkedIn (along with any other big tech companies locking down and crippling their APIs) is wrong to even try to block it.
Is it an issue of the resources scrapers consume? No: Even ordinary users trying to get API access on a registered persistent account linked to their name are stymied in accessing their own data. LinkedIn simply doesn't want you to access your own data via API, or in any manner that isn't blessed by them. That ain't right.
Accessing other users' LinkedIn data via the API requires their OAuth consent, as it should be. But you are welcome to access your own data via the API.
It implies more than just the browser, which is likely why it was used for the post title. If it is exclusively limited to the browser, then "scans your browser" is more correct, and doesn't mislead the reader into thinking something is happening which isn't commonplace on the internet.
The browser fingerprinting described is ubiquitous on the internet, used by players large and small. There are even libraries to do this.
Like OP, I don't consider behavior confined to the browser to be my computer. "Scans your browser" is both technically correct and less misleading. "Scans your computer" was chosen instead, to get more clicks.
> This is correct... and like I said the common European sentiment
It's actually the common *global* "sentiment", in that it is the natural conclusion of any rational actor regardless of location, and also in that most of the world feels this way.
Europe has nothing to do with it – all the countries being slighted by the USA, including non-European ones, are coming to grips with the same conclusion: the USA can no longer be relied upon*.
Let's not extend this beyond the European opinion, especially since it's obvious that East Asia does not share the same point of view. East Asia and Europe have very different threats that shape their opinion of the US fundamentally. Europe does not have China breathing down their neck, and with Russia bogged down they have even less to worry about. Europe can freely reject the US, which is what this chain of comments is about, the popular European sentiment. In contrast, if there's anti-US sentiment in Taiwan, it would be in a minority and publicly disagreed with as their nation's existence hinges on positive US sentiment. To a lesser degree, the same thing in other East Asian countries.
> Let's not extend this beyond the European opinion
Too late! You already did!
> it's obvious that East Asia does not share the same point of view
It's quite obvious that East Asia, and any other regions containing a country being slighted by the US, does share that point of view: that the US can no longer be relied upon. Countries around the world are diversifying their investments of time, effort, and favor, away from the USA.
This clearly surprises you. It is indeed shocking: that's how far the USA has fallen, *globally*, in only a year or so.
> In contrast, if there's anti-US sentiment in Taiwan
Nobody said anything about "anti-US". We're simply talking about trusting that a country can be relied upon [0]. After seeing USA's behavior over the last year, Taiwan is understandably increasingly concerned that the US cannot be relied upon to defend against a Chinese invasion.
And they're right! Based on the track record of the USA's ruler, they can expect:
1. To be coerced into falsifying information to help the ruler's political campaign, and/or
2. To be told to pay for the help (possibly by allowing the USA to annex some territory), making it not help, but a basic transaction, and/or
3. To be told they would be helped, but then left high and dry when the time comes to help, and/or
4. For the USA to themselves start a war between China and Taiwan, to distract from media coverage of said ruler's involvement with a human-trafficking/child-sex ring.
All of these things have already been done by the ruler. We can reasonably expect him to do them again.
> which is what this chain of comments is about, the popular European sentiment
Again, it's the common *global* sentiment. You are the only one seeming to claim it is limited to Europeans, which is an incorrect claim. Beyond that, are you simply observing that the common European sentiment over the last year (negative) reflects the common global sentiment over the last year (negative), or was there a deeper point?
>This clearly surprises you. It is indeed shocking: that's how far the USA has fallen, globally, in only a year or so.
No, I'm the one who brought up this topic of how Europeans have an increasing unpopular opinion about the US. How is this surprising to me? I literally brought it up. The reason I don't consider East Asia relevant, is because East Asia and Europe do not have the same existential issues. East Asia's dependency on the US is far greater than Europe, and from East Asia's political point of view, Europe may as well not exist at all. Its primary political relations are with the US, SEA, and China. European sentiment about the US holds no relevance there, as it is not Europe, and they are not Europeans. This may surprise you, but the world does not revolve around European sentiment.
> No, I'm the one who brought up this topic of how Europeans have an increasing unpopular opinion about the US
This may surprise you, but the world does not revolve around European sentiment. It should be no surprise, however, that a significant sample (Europe) of a population (the world) has a similar mean to that same population. And that's precisely what we see here: European trust in the USA is eroding, just like East Asia's trust in the USA is eroding, just like global trust in the USA is eroding.
> East Asia's dependency on the US is far greater than Europe
And yet, they still have lost trust in the US. Let that sink in.
> if there's anti-US sentiment in Taiwan
There is!
> it would be in a minority
It isn't!
> their nation's existence hinges on positive US sentiment
Their nation's existence actually hinges on the daily positive vibes of one greedy senile narcissist, which is part of why they have lost trust in the USA.
The world, including both Europe and East Asia, has an increasingly unpopular opinion about the USA. Are you simply observing that the common European sentiment over the last year (negative) reflects the common global sentiment over the last year (negative), or was there a deeper point?
The other poster mentioned the opinions about the US and China being multi-faceted, I like to see it with vectors. My question is, given all the vectors, can you provide an average magnitude and average direction of the vector? If the average vector points left the opinion favors China, if it points right the opinion favors the US.
The American point of view is, yes we did make a claim towards Greenland which is European territory, but we also helped with European security. These are two separate vectors, right? Now average them. And plot China's vectors. I imagine the vectors China produces is much lower in magnitude, and as such provokes a lower emotional response in terms of opinions.
> My question is, given all the vectors, can you provide an average magnitude and average direction of the vector?
It's an interesting question! Since you seem to have your finger on the pulse of Europeans, I'll toss it back your way to answer (with data, of course).
> yes we did make a claim towards Greenland which is European territory, but we also helped with European security.
"Yes, we did threaten to invade a sovereign European country for territorial conquest, but we also did good things in the past" is really weak. How has the US helped Europe's security over the last year?
Most of the work in that direction over several decades is being intentionally destroyed as of late by the USA's ruler as a signature policy position of his. We all understand that past performance is not a guarantee of future results, right? What happened recently outweighs what happened previously.
You can't deny access to a coast that large with carpet bombing, especially in a mountainous terrain. It has never worked. You'd need tens to hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground to do that.
If you wanted to try it with bombs, it would take continual re-dropping of hundreds of thousands of bombs every few hours to cover (1600km * 8km) to keep people out, even assuming they have 0 shelter or cover.
> can't deny access to a coast that large with carpet bombing, especially in a mountainous terrain. It has never worked. You'd need tens to hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground to do that
I think this is more an open question than “it has never worked.” Nobody has tried to area deny FPV-drone navigators. Bases on lines of sight and line channels, one could probably back out from transit paths to the places one would need to be to hit that target, and then ensure anything there is turned from psychology to biology before a critical moment. You couldn’t do this with smart munitions, and couldn’t along the entire Hormuz coast. But for critical junctures that our closest allies (minus Kuwait) need to export? The math seems feasible, if fundamentally untackled.
> I think this is more an open question than “it has never worked.”
I don't think so – we were talking about continually carpet bombing Iran to continually deny them access to a 1600km-long coastline. That simply has never worked. Not in Iran, not elsewhere to my knowledge.
> Bases on lines of sight and line channels, one could probably back out from transit paths to the places one would need to be to hit that target
That describes pretty much anywhere in the 7000+ square kilometers we're talking about. A drone doesn't need a runway. Anywhere you can fit a large pickup truck, you can launch a Shaheed drone.
> Nobody has tried to area deny FPV-drone navigators.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Deny the area to Iran's FPV drones? If so, how? Use FPV drones to deny the area? If so, how? We're talking about continually patrolling 7,000+ square kilometers. The USA has never fielded such a system, and has no publicly known capabilities to do so.
Perhaps Mark is one of those people, and simply lacks the capability to effectively introspect, and he's trying to turn that into a flex.
reply