> I saw like 10+ people deciding to switch from "superphones" down to mid-range models
Mid-range phones now cost as much as previous "superphones". The iPhone launched at $499($615 after inflation) and the latest iPhone XS launched at $999.
Thanks for sharing this. That article is very interesting. I only thought about the fact that squirrels were a native species and didn't consider the fact that cities are not "natural".
The primary benefit of Diceware over a "random" string of characters is that it is easy to remember and truly random. With a password manager you don't need to remember the password and it will be generated truly randomly. A string of 11 random alphanumeric charatcers has more entropy than a 5 word diceware passphrase with the added benefit that it is less to type if you need to do so manually. But diceware can be a good idea for creating the master password for your password manager and if you do that you should probably use a 10 word passphrase rather than 5.
> Simon didn't see the growing population as a catastrophic problem. He explained that we are not like any other species. We have an economy and markets. So, according to Simon, if the world demands more oil, the price of oil will go up, and there will be an incentive to find more, or find an alternative.
> Simon proposed that they bet on what would happen to the price of five metals — copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten — over a decade.
> And the logic was that these metals were essential for all kinds of stuff — electronics, cars, buildings. So, if Ehrlich was right, more people on the planet would mean we would start running out of stuff, and the price of these things should go up.
> Those next 10 years, from 1980 to 1990, crept by. The world population grew by 800 million people. Then it was 1990. And they tallied it up. Simon, the economist, decisively won. Prices for the five metals went down by an average of 50 percent.
> One of the reasons the prices dropped was just what Simon said. The catastrophe Ehrlich was predicting just did not happen. People invented substitutes, like companies switching from aluminum to plastic for packaging.
Without denying or confirming that Chrome's security is better than any other browser, how often have you heard of someone with an up-to-date Firefox, Edge, Safari, Chrome, or some other major browser, being hacked this way? If you do an honest risk analysis, how big is the extra risk of using a less secure browser (assuming your statement is true)? And is a single 0day (which Chrome has just as well) enough to compromise your entire life, like, you would probably have defense in depth (running the browser in a VM, for example) if you're that worried in the first place?
For those who think I'm just jabbing and that a VM would be too unpactical: at work (we're a security firm) we have a fresh VM for each new project for compartmentalization. Our browser, tools, everything runs in there and nothing should ever reach the host --- unless, of course, you have a VM escape, but then you need two zero-days instead of one. For more sensitive projects, even more measures are taken, but that's rare: you have to draw the line somewhere.
Just saying "Chrome is the only secure option" is a little too short-sighted I think.
When a browser removes your ability to block ads and trackers, it is creating a giant security hole. Even Google's own ads trick users into clicking on them while believing that they are going to legitimate sites.
