Seems like if ProtonMail can encrypt them automatically, then they can potentially be decrypted by someone at ProtonMail.
Reasoning:
Are emails automatically encrypted with a hash of the user password when they are received?
If the user forgets the password, how do password resets work?
Are the emails before the password reset "lost", or does ProtonMail keep a copy of the hashed password (which I suppose would be needed to log in with in the first place) to unencrypt the older emails, and re-encrypt with the newer password?
If they really use your password to encrypt, they can also decrypt your emails. I doubt they would advertise this as encryption... I'm not sure what they do technically, but using the password doesnt sound like a good mechanism.
On my mobile (iPhone), I get clicks and other artifacts on playback, which increase when scrolling the view, which I guess indicates samples not being generated fast enough.
What is the significance of this decision? This is already explicitly stated as disallowed in GDPR. Is this just an declaration of intention to enforce the existing law?
At my company’s site[1] we have a non-intrusive banner at the bottom which lets you agree or disagree to tracking cookies, or just ignore it and browse the site.
You don’t get served any tracking cookies until you agree.
This fulfills the explicit consent requirement of GDPR as well as the requirement for people to be able to use your site even if they don’t accept cookies.
We get much less analytics then we used to - many people just ignore the cookies bar, either knowingly or just because they don’t notice it. But it’s totally worth it.
I hope the EU starts fining non-compliant (i.e. 99% of) sites aggressively, specifically those that pretend to care about your privacy, but don’t really (“Agree” button only).
I really like how this allows you to learn more about how the compiler understands your code. It could be really neat if it were added as an assistant editor in Xcode.
The issue at hand, is people are REALLY sensitive to having their voting record(s) tracked. If you know someone's key, you can track all their votes on the blockchain.
If the blockchain isn't public, then it isn't trustable.
Sure, maybe you can design a provably correct e-voting system, but 99% of the people will just have to blindly trust the system. Then one day a politician will point out that his new election system is better, because it has nicer colors and some stuff, and maybe a lot of people will agree with him. A lot of people will be willing to move from from the provably correct system, which they blindly trust, to another system which they blindly trust. Except maybe the new system did away with all that blockchain mambo-jumbo and a few people on weird internet sites are complaining about it and saying that this isn't what we signed up originally with e-voting, but who listens to them?
> C++ apparently wants to separate 1 from 2 and 3, to move more high-level and get more "language magic" (templates, iteration stuff... ) without making the language any safer in any respect.
How so? Take std::unique_ptr for example, which exists since C++11. It facilitates using the language in a safer manner, and at a higher level of abstraction (you no longer have to manually malloc and free/new and delete - you just have the concept of scoped ownership), while at the same time not adding any “behind the scenes” magic (e.g. garbage collection) so as not to leave room for any high-level language to be more performant than it is - that’s the real motto of C++, to my understanding.
It seems odd that this comment, of all of the ones I've made, is getting downvoted.
Did I break a taboo? Am I not supposed to notice that the + operator in C++ programs can represent vastly different amounts of CPU work and memory usage in different contexts? Or that RAII does substantial amounts of work which is hidden from the source code?
Seems like magic is magic regardless of whether it happens at compile time or runtime.
