I just hate that highly entertaining, high production value, high effort streamers get like 10-50 viewers tops, and two chicks sitting on the couch barely speaking will get 3,000. Like I understand what drives it, but how fucking desperate are people.
PSA: you can request deletion of your 23andMe account. It won’t do anything for this past hack, but it’ll at least prevent your data from being included in future hacks (assuming they actually completely delete your data like they’re supposed to).
it’s almost always a soft delete, that is, change active field in database to false, coupled with their terms of service that state vaguely how they start the deletion process which could take months and how they may still keep certain data for legitimate purposes.
And this is why I wish we adopted GDPR more… if they are compliant, then they have to remove all data held when requested. Too bad the US will never care that much to respect individuals’ data like that.
How does the legal authority work with GDPR if the company’s physical and financial operations are entirely within the US? Would the GDPR even be allowed to audit them without their consent?
No idea if they’ve been audited. GDPR doesn’t require it. My understanding is that American companies doing any business or having any users in the EU need to be GDPR compliant for those users. I don’t think that’s been challenged in any courts yet.
Why would you this wasn’t even a hack for my understanding?
It was a password stuffing attack. Meaning that a bunch of users with reused crappy passwords had their accounts accessed with their legitimate passwords by attackers.
I’m not sure why this reflects horribly on the company in a way that would encourage one to delete their account?
This would be like leaving the key to your apartment in a public place and then complaining about your landlords terrible security when someone accesses your house when you’re not there.
They stuffed passwords to get them access to information not just on the compromised accounts’ profiles but to detailed data on a large group of other people whose accounts weren’t compromised through a function within 23andMe’s database browser.
Tor can be used for any internet browsing you usually do. The key difference with Tor is that the network hides your IP address and other system information for full anonymity.
The company behind a VPN can still access your information, sell it or pass it along to law enforcement. With Tor, there’s no link between you and your traffic, according to Jed Crandall, an associate professor at Arizona State University.
I don't know if it's even possible, but it would be cool if I could use the fediverse over TOR just for the sake of supporting TOR. Not sure if there would have to be specific .onion instances, if normal instances could just be mirrored with a .onion address, or if a .onion instance would even be able to federated in the first place. I just don't know how it works.
Other use cases may include keeping the identities of sensitive populations like undocumented immigrants anonymous, trying to unionize a workplace without the company shutting it down, victims of domestic violence looking for resources without their abuser finding out or, as Crandall said, wanting to make embarrassing Google searches without related targeted ads following you around forever.
I'm certain an all-out legislative war would be waged against TOR if it were to become popularized for most of those reasons, under the more convenient guise of "criminals and children!"
Well any instance owner could also get an onion link and host the instance over tor.
Of course the instance itself can't really hide. Since it needs to federate with others that are not onions. But your accesses would all show as from localhost.
I’m certain an all-out legislative war would be waged against TOR if it were to become popularized for most of those reasons, under the more convenient guise of “criminals and children!”
I guess we’ll have to see what happens after that right wing Twitter account posted CSAM, Twitter suspended the account, then Elon said they removed the posts and reinstated the account 🤷🏽♂️
Tor can be used for any internet browsing you usually do. The key difference with Tor is that the network hides your IP address and other system information for full anonymity
Also, this isn’t true. MANY sites and services block access from Tor, including major ones that people use everyday.
I've noticed that just as the most aggressive ad blocker blockers are news media websites, the most aggressive tor-exit-node blockers are retail sites such as lowes.com. My working hypothesis is that they view anonymous transactions (or perhaps even anonymous window shopping) as stealing. When it comes to actionable data for market research, data about actual finalized transactions where actual money changed hands is the holy grail. It's the data that has skin in the game. As for window shopping online, you know the drill, you do that, you hear about it on Fecebook. Until recently I searched retail sites with the site: filter of a search engine (the one that works on Tor, of course), but until recently, most site searches were even more enshittified than most of the two search engines. Now search engines are out and Tor is out. Perhaps offline shopping is in. BTW, just for shits and giggles, try carrying a clipboard next time you visit a brick and mortar retail establishment and see what happens, or better yet, whip out your cell phone and start photographing not merchandise but shelf tags. Information is power, my friends.
the most aggressive tor-exit-node blockers are retail sites such as lowes.com.
Lowes doesn’t care about anonymous window shopping - they care about the transactions. Transactions coming from a tor exit node are more likely to be fraudulent than those from a regular shopper not trying to mask their origin.
The cost of implementing a tor exit node blocker is much less than the costs associated with fraudulent orders (and the corresponding increase in chargebacks from those fraudulent orders and the impact that has on the usage fees from the credit card processing companies).
I’ve also found that many ones that are blocked aren’t completely blocked, I can access them by using a new circuit (lots of these sites seem to really hate European Exit nodes but anything else has typically worked).
Is that what it is? Every once in a while I have to Ctrl+Shift+L it to get into something, but I’ve never watched that closely. What did Europe do to these guys?
I think it might have something to do with the fact that much of Europe has privacy laws that protect their citizens and also makes it so people running nodes there don’t have to kiss up to US companies. Hence why they block those nodes or just give them a huge amount of challenges to solve in hopes to frustrate them. Same with how they put annoying privacy pop-ups on the website in European locations which re-appear every time you login or visit the site.
I know they require them, it’s is the way that they’re implemented that I’m referring to. Like they made it deliberately frustrating. Some of them one a few websites even pop up twice or even three times and you have to click them multiple times to get them to go down.
The best site to read about what is actually mandated and to see how they implement it is gdpr.eu … which has a privacy pop up on it that shows up each time.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
If you read it a bit, it pretty much lays out what you see everywhere. They can only make you use strictly necessary cookies, and everything else has to be easily opted into or out of. I’m not sure why their own website is different, maybe it has no trackers in the first place.
Now, that doesn’t mean it has to be presented in a series of popups.
Last I tried you couldn’t access social media, Google constantly forces you through captchas because it thinks you’re a bot, and anything on a CDN will either constantly force captchas or just doesn’t work. Financial institutions absolutely are all inaccessible.
Also. Those running an exit node can and do sniff traffic.
It’s bad practice to login to stuff that’s important (like banking) over tor. Or login to anything over for you have logged into over the clear.
Also, nation states can track you using a variety of techniques from fingerprinting to straight up working together to associate connection streams. A large number of tor nodes are run by alphabet agencies. Hell the protocol was developed by the us navy.
Also. Those running an exit node can and do sniff traffic.
Sure, but if you stop there with that statement you’re just FUD-scaring people from using the service that does more for their privacy than conventional direct clearnet usage. Every connection that matters uses TLS so the exit node honeypot only sees where the traffic is going, not what’s in the traffic and not where it comes from. IOW, the exit node knows much less than your ISP.
It’s bad practice to login to stuff that’s important (like banking) over tor.
It’s the other way around. You should . It’s a bad practice to let your ISP track where you do all your banking.
Also, nation states can track you using a variety of techniques from fingerprinting to straight up working together to associate connection streams.
And your thesis is what, that we should make snooping easier for them by not practicing sensible self-defense?
A large number of tor nodes are run by alphabet agencies.
Let them work for it - and let them give the Tor network more bandwidth in the process.
Every connection that matters uses TLS so the exit node honeypot only sees where the traffic is going, not what’s in the traffic and not where it comes from. IOW, the exit node knows much less than your ISP.
That’s not a magic bullet for secuirty. There are so many ways to exploit connections. Look at what happened here on lemmy with vulns leading to takeovers of instances with xss of session cookies . Or what happened to Linus Sebastian and his YouTube channel, which has one of the largest, most security conscious companies backing it.
The primary difference is your ISP is not generally actively hostile. They may want to sell metadata but they aren’t actively trying to exploit you. And all it takes is a bad auto fill page, or even a fake/spoofed one on an account without mfa or a service with xss vulns etc.
And your thesis is what, that we should make snooping easier for them by not practicing sensible self-defense?
To your own point. Everything is TLS now right? That argument swings both ways. If your ISP (or in some cases a nation state is your isp) is actively tracking you, then there are other alternatives that may be better. Mullvad would sooner be used for banking than tor. Tor is also not all that often used en masse. If my township only has a single tor user (me) that makes me less private. An ISP can easily see who is enterting tor unless you are using more obfuscation like bridges and obfsproxy. It’s the same reason why checking the do not track box in your browser is less privacy oriented. It adds entropy to your fingerprint there.
But to answer my your question my thesis is tor is not necessarily a privacy panacea. The threat model an American or European has is much different than someone from Vietnam or turkey or China, which is also much different than someone from the Nordic countries.
It wasn’t presented as such. Good security comes in layers (“security in depth”). TLS serves users well but it’s not the only tool in the box.
There are so many ways to exploit connections. Look at what happened here on lemmy with vulns leading to takeovers of instances with xss of session cookies.
Tor Browser includes noscript which blocks XSS.
The primary difference is your ISP is not generally actively hostile. They may want to sell metadata but they aren’t actively trying to exploit you.
Selling your metadata is exploiting you. And this exploit happens lawfully under a still-existing Trump policy, so you have zero legal protections. Contrast that with crooks stealing money from your bank account, where, if it’s a US account, you have regulation E legal protections.
If your ISP (or in some cases a nation state is your isp) is actively tracking you, then there are other alternatives that may be better.
Different tools for different threat models. If you are actually targeted by a nation state, Tor alone is insufficient but it’s still in play in conjunction with other tech. But from context, you were giving general advice to the general public telling them not to use Tor for banking, thus targeting is not in the threat model. But mass surveillance IS (i.e. that of your ISP).
But to answer my your question my thesis is tor is not necessarily a privacy panacea.
Tor is an indispensable tool to streetwise users. Of course it is a tool among other tools & techniques.
The threat model an American or European has is much different than someone from Vietnam or turkey or China, which is also much different than someone from the Nordic countries.
Those threat models all have a common denominator: mass surveillance. It is safe to assume mass surveillance is in everyone’s threat model as a baseline. Of course there are a variety of other threats in each individual threat model for which you couldn’t necessarily anticipate.
Good security comes in layers (“security in depth”). TLS serves users well but it’s not the only tool in the box.
Im glad we agree. Because its the entire point. You are nitpicking where it suits you and thats not really honest conversation. Tor browser isnt the only way to access tor and if you are talking about making tor more accessible using things like phones is going to be needed. There are entire swaths of the world, billions of people, where phones are basically the only gateways to the inter.
And on a device with something like CalyxOS (or built with the app structure like calyxOS android based apps) that opens up a LOT more applications to using tor, some of which arent going to be locked down or configured appropriately. Its riskier. You seem to implicitly agree as you only pointed to a single example of XSS and just ignored other examples I provided…Surely we dont need to iterate through every attack vector out there? Because the point isnt those minutia there.
The point is, again, that Tor and specifically exit nodes are more hostile than normal ISP relays. They are actively malicious and often looking to exploit anything they can. Saying selling metatdata that is unencrypted is the same level of malicious as a nation state going after you (life and death) or having your identity or bank account stolen is clearly pretty naive. Even having your banking comprimised is a giant show stopper and theres no “well i have protections” flag to waive. You still have to deal with getting your funds back and paying for stuff to live in the interim. Its a very invasive process. Comparing that to an ISP selling your DNS queries (which im not even sure happens) is literally apples and orances
Those threat models all have a common denominator: mass surveillance. It is safe to assume mass surveillance is in everyone’s threat model as a baseline.
Thats a bad assumption. MOST people arent really concerned with it in the western world. Its why the apparatus exists. And thats not a Trump thing. its existed WAY before trump. Snowden showed that and it was Obama, not trump, that went after whistleblowers harder than any predecessor before them. Its why Snowden is still in exile to this day. Further trying to make this about “party” sides is a bad idea. Its something all parties, including most countries are not only a party to, but actively collaborating against. And there are some areas where straight access TOR is illegal and can get you in trouble. ANd the mass surveillance one country does (ie: US) is much different than another (ie China) so again its not just a giant brush to paint with there. Piping all data through Tor would make you look more suspicious in some of those latter countries and could increase your risk to fingerprinting or tracking, rather than selectively using it where and only when needed.
Im glad we agree. Because its the entire point. You are nitpicking where it suits you and thats not really honest conversation.Tor browser isnt the only way to access tor
TLS is useful very specifically in the case of banking via Tor Browser, which is the most likely configuration the normal general public would use given the advice to access their bank over Tor.
There are entire swaths of the world, billions of people, where phones are basically the only gateways to the inter.
I do not recommend using a smartphone for banking. You’re asking for a huge attack surface & it’s reckless. People will do it anyway but to suggest that people should avoid Tor for banking on the basis that you’re assuming they are using a phone is terrible advice based on a poor assumption. Use Tor Browser from a PC for banking. That is the best advice for normies.
The point is, again, that Tor and specifically exit nodes are more hostile than normal ISP relays.
And again, those hostile nodes get less info than ISPs. They have to work harder to reach the level of exposure that your ISP has both technical and legal privilege to exploit.
Saying selling metatdata that is unencrypted is the same level of malicious as a nation state going after you (life and death) or having your identity or bank account stolen is clearly pretty naive.
Wow did you ever get twisted. You forgot that I excluded targeting by nation states from the threat model as you should. If someone has that in their threat model, they will know some guy in a forum saying “don’t use Tor for banking” is not on the same page, not aligned with their scenario, and not advising them. You don’t have to worry about Snowden blindly taking advice from you.
It’s naive to assume your ISP is not collecting data on you and using it against you. It’s sensible to realize the risk of a honeypot tapping your bank account and getting away with it and regulation E protections failing is unlikely enough to be negligible.
You still have to deal with getting your funds back and paying for stuff to live in the interim.
If you’re in the US, you have ~2-3 bank accounts on avg, and 20 credit cards (US averages). Not to mention the unlikeliness of an account getting MitM compromised despite TLS in the 1st place. Cyber criminals choose the easier paths, just as 3 letter agencies do: they compromise the endpoint. Attacking the middle of a tunnel is very high effort & when it’s achieved they aren’t going to waste it on some avg joe’s small-time bank acct. At best you might have some low-tech attempts that result in no padlock on the user side. But I’ve never seen that in all my years of exclusively banking over Tor.
Thats a bad assumption.
Not in the slightest. Everyone is subject to mass surveillance & surveillance capitalism.
MOST people arent really concerned with it in the western world.
Most people don’t even have a threat model, or know what it is. But if you ask them how they would like it if their ISP told their debt collector where they bank so the debt collector can go do an unannounced legal money grab, you’ll quickly realize what would be in their threat model if they knew to build one. A lot of Corona Virus economic stimulus checks were grabbed faster than debtors even noticed the money arriving on their account.
And thats not a Trump thing. its existed WAY before trump. Snowden showed that and it was Obama, not trump, that went after whistleblowers harder than any predecessor before them.
You missed the source I gave. Obama banned the practice of ISPs selling customer data without their consent. Trump reversed that. That is wholly 100% on Trump. Biden did not overturn Trump, so if you want, you can put some of the fault on Biden.
W.r.t history, echelon predates Snowden’s revelations and it was exposed to many by Nicky Hagar in the 80s or 90s. But this all a red herring because in the case at hand (banking customers accessing their acct), it’s the particular ISP role of mass surveillance that’s relevant, which Trump enabled. Or course there is plenty of other mass surveillance going on with banking, but all that is orthogonal to whether they use Tor or not. The role of Tor merely mitigates the ISP from tracking where they bank, and prevents banks from tracking where you physically are, both of which are useful protections.
Further trying to make this about “party” sides is a bad idea. Its something all parties
You can’t “both sides” this when it’s verifiable that Obama banned the practice and Trump overturned it. While Obama’s hands are dirty on a lot of things (e.g. Patriot Act continuity), it’s specifically Trump who flipped the switch to ISP overcollection. Citation needed if you don’t accept this.
And there are some areas where straight access TOR is illegal and can get you in trouble.
The general public knows your general advice to use/not use Tor is technical advice not legal advice, and also not specific to their particular jurisdiction.
There are entire swaths of the world, billions of people, where phones are basically the only gateways to the inter.
I do not recommend using a smartphone for banking. You’re asking for a huge attack surface & it’s reckless. People will do it anyway but to suggest that people should avoid Tor for banking on the basis that you’re assuming they are using a phone is terrible advice based on a poor assumption. Use Tor Browser from a PC for banking. That is the best advice for normies.
again, the article is about “normies” using tor to get it to lose its stigma… The only way it gets de-stigmatized is for “normies” to use it. The way “normies” access things is vastly different. There are risks to that. And its not just banking. Getting your email account hacked because you used it on a malicious exit node for one reason or another is just as bad, if not worse. Tor exit nodes are wholesale more malicious than your ISP.
I dont know why you are getting hyper fixated on specific use cases that were used as broad examples. Banking isnt the point its the general use of TOR and the risk it brings. Forest for the trees my guy.
What effect would using Tor browser to access a non onion site have over using a different, privacy-focused browser? Honest question. I assumed Tor browser was no different than other browsers in that aspect.
The difference is that your ISP doesn’t know where your packets are headed, and the destination doesn’t know where your packets came from. The ISP sees you connect to the entrance node and the destination sees you connect from the exit node, and it’s very difficult for anyone to trace the connection back to you (unless they own both the entrance and exit and use traffic coorelation or some other exploit/fingerprint). Regardless, both parties are generally able to tell that you are using TOR if they reference lists of known entrance/exit nodes. Also the anti-fingerprinting measures taken by TB are a bit more strict than other privacy-focused browsers
Thank you for the detailed answer. I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about using tor browser, considering how privacy-minded the community tends to be.
No problem! And yeah, it’s good to see people talking about it over here. I think it’s the best tool for online privacy OOTB (depending on your threat model), and it gets better the more people use it.
It is confusing, Tor is an excellent privacy tool if used properly (don’t log in to stuff), but I guess it’s still a technical hurdle to most. Probably also from a lack of marketing.
I think in countries where the government is decidedly more authoritarian it’s more known. On my relay right now I see a ton of russian and a smaller amount of German connections.
I mean, I’ve used it. It works. But I don’t get why you would bother most of the time. It’s slow as hell and while I’m generally fairly concerned about my privacy there is a point where I can’t be bothered.
BS. One new CD is at least 10$. A good band collection is then a year worth of subscription fees. So, do you only listen to a few bands?
Before Spotify I pirated everything. In lossless, ofc. I had 200GB of music, it wouldn’t fit on my ipod classic, and I still was limited.
I pirated at least a lifetime worth of Spotify premium and yet when I switched to Spotify I discovered so many more artists like the ones I already liked. If I now tried to buy all the songs I’ve listened to more than once in the last 5 years, I’d go bankrupt.
Spotify is way cheaper.
(now add ease of discovering new music, listening to whatever your friends want to listen to in a car, collaborative playlists, etc etc)
Hey if you find value in paying a subscription go nuts, I won’t throw shade
but i used spotify for almost 15 years. Averaged out to $8 a month that’s more than $1400, and how much of that music do you think I own?
You can do what you want with your money but I’m not paying another dime to subscription streamers. For discovery there’s still radio and youtube and ad-supported streamers, and I still find new artists at music festivals and local venue concerts all the time.
The description of an unexpected/(impossible) orientation for an on road obstacle works as an excuse, right up to the point where you realize that the software should, explicitly, not run into anything at all. That’s got to be, like, the first law of (robotic) vehicle piloting.
It was just lucky that it happened twice as, otherwise, Alphabet likely would have shrugged it off as some unimportant, random event.
It’s great though - that’s how you get amazing services and technological advancement.
I wish we had that. In Europe you’re just stuck paying 50 euros for a taxi in major cities (who block the roads, etc. to maintain their monopolies).
Meanwhile in the USA you guys have VR headsets, bioluminescent houseplants and self-driving cars (not to mention the $100k+ salaries!), it’s incredible.
True, but your savings on non-luxury bones helps with the fees associated with luxury ones, I’m sure. I can’t do anything for my bones with a $30 glowing petunia.
Yeah it’s $40 for an Uber in Columbus or Cleveland as well. There isn’t a monopoly on taxis creating that price, thats just how much it actually costs to rent a car for cross city travel.
If you want a no regulations/free market at the helm, you want to move to India. They have all the rules you love.
It should of course not run into anything, but it does need to be able to identify obstacles at the very least for crash priority when crazy shit inevitably happens. For instance, maybe it hits a nice squishy Pomeranian that won’t cause any damage to itself instead of swerving to avoid it and possibly totalling itself by hitting a fire hydrant.
Or maybe it hits the fire hydrant instead of a toddler.
At any rate, being able to identify an obstacle and react to unexpected orientations of those obstacles is something I think a human driver does pretty well most of the time. Autonomous cars are irresponsible and frankly I can’t believe they’re legal to operate.
I didn’t read it as them saying “therefore this isn’t a problem,” it was an explanation for why it happened. Think about human explanations for accidents: “they pulled out in front of me” “they stopped abruptly”. Those don’t make it ok that an accident happened either.
I do feel sorry for them. Death threats are not ok in this scenario, boycotts and protests are. Death threats makes them a victim, and this shifts away the discussion from the victims they’ve created. The people making death threats as well as those who do not condemn them are helping support Unity indirectly.
When you call for violent threats you give ammo to the very groups that you wish to inflict harm upon for the masses to side with them
Accountability for CEO actions needs to be done financially. It needs to first and foremost affect shareholders - because that’s the only point for a public company to exist - and then after that it needs to personally penalize CEOs.
If you just target the figurehead of a company the owners won’t really be affected. You need to get them where it REALLY hurts - in the wallet. Only then will the dynamic change.
We can see clearly that that’s not happening. No one has any actual sympathy for Unity and even the most highly upvoted comments in this thread are of people justifying it.
No one in the masses sides with them. People are not that stupid.
You only have a fuckload of sympathy for them because you either have a political agenda or they’re lining your pocketbook. Either way, your opinion is irrelevant.
You’re acting insane. And vile, and despicable. The proper response to people saying #EatTheRich is to leave them the hell alone. If people agree with the dumb death threats and stupidity, that’s their right. Not everyone has to think like you to be good or valid people. You’re deeply problematic for thinking otherwise.
I’d say being dead really hurts them. Seriously though I get what you’re saying but it isn’t the reality and we know it. The rich take advantage of us, write the laws and just win overall.
I don’t see it as wrong for us to be violent toward these people
I think it would be really cool if it worked like they wanted us to believe it would. Like, it could be one of those “change the way we live our day to day lives” events to the like of of smartphones becoming mainstream.
This device was never going to live up to that or get anywhere close to it, but I can’t blame people for really wanting to believe.
Huh? What do you think they promised that wasn’t delivered that would’ve made this anything that a phone app couldn’t do better? Fundamentally, talking to things sucks, but phones support that anyway. The gimmicky interface is worse than just a touch screen. You have to wear the fucking thing which makes it useless if I’m in bed or whatever. The AI was shit but could just as easily be integrated into an app. It was a shit product from design to execution.
A device that can do all of the things a phone can do without needing to find and install apps, that can learn from your usage patterns in effective and practical ways, and is unobtrusive to wear all the time sounds pretty fucking cool to me.
That is the promised future that AI devices are selling; I thought I was pretty clear that this device was never going to deliver on it.
The thing is, even if the device was doing what they said it would do… It could be an app. In fact it makes more sense. No double network subscription, no need for expensive hardware on top of the one you already carry, expanded acess to the user’s data, better hardware in some case (camera for example), more efficient, more integration with other tools (from basic stuff like a calendar to gps etc), and so on.
If AI was a juice the humane pin would be it’s juicero.
The subscription makes sense for having LTE access. That’s not really a problem nor hard to justify. Even the concept sounds pretty solid overall. But everything from price to execution was just wildly bad.
And my 5G unlimited plan is $70/mo, but can go as low as $20/mo for 4G prepaid on my network. Seems reasonable to me.
For clarity, the reasonable part is that the pin network subscription is ~$20 here. Not that $20 for 4G is reasonable but that’s a different issue than what we are discussing specifically.
I don’t get it. It was so easy to call this, Rabbit, home 3D TVs, the Fire Phone, etc.
What do we see that these execs don’t? Why can I call flops 5 seconds after hearing them but they go on to spend millions to develop products which go nowhere?
She hates him more. When she changed her name, she changed her surname to her mother’s and had it put into the court record that she disowns her father. She could have just broken contact, waited for him to die and hoped she was included in the will, but he was such an awful father that she said, “fuck you and your billions of dollars.” Can you imagine how exceptionally bad a parent that would make him?
But is she “barring significant changes in world financial systems, my descendants could purchase a small nation-state every generation and still likely never have to sell their labor or until the end of their genetic line” wealthy? Gotta remember that Billion with a B is an absurdly large number that is literally beyond human comprehension in anything but an abstract sense by a large margin.
I got more curious, so I did some searching, and I just can’t. Turns out Musk has some absurd number of children with several different women. And I only found that out through some pop culture/celebrity worship/exploitation websites I’d rather not have in my search history. I couldn’t even find the name or age of the child in question (probably for the best, I wouldn’t want my children to go through this, either), though it seems of the three children he had with Grimes, the oldest just turned 4. That’s a bit young to even know what disowning is.
Sure, her mom is loaded. But even ignoring the money, she wanted it known in a legal setting and on an official court transcript that she did not consider Elon Musk to be her father. That’s quite the statement.
i maintain redirects for old URLs for which the content still exists at another address. i've been doing that since i started working on web sites 20-some years ago. not many take the time to do that, but i do. so there's at least a few web sites out there that if you have a 20 year old bookmark to, chances are it still works.
I hate humanity sometimes, why would they send death threats? Just don’t use their engine; this is the way you actually make a change – switch to something else, threatening people does not help you prove your point. I hate their new pricing changes too, but death threats are never warranted
I absolutely agree. I’d want to say those threats are people outside of the industry. People in the industry have received death threats themselves so they understand that it’s real shitty, right? I hope so.
While I’m not defending those who sent these death threats or justifying these actions, I’m sure a lot work and progress will be lost for many companies because of these outrageous changes. It should be no surprise that many if not all of their clients are gonna be angry. Switching to another engine isn’t like switching from reddit to the fediverse.
They’re changing pennies per install, and only after the publisher is receiving over $200,000 per year, and they don’t count the first 100,000 installs. The price goes down dramatically for customers at the higher subscription tiers. I don’t understand why people are so pissed about them wanting such a tiny cut for providing the software that does so much heavy lifting for game developers.
Their new pricing is not horrible, but it’s pretty wonky at best
After the first wave of outrage they had to clarify that it wouldn’t take reinstalls into account, which should have been clear from the beginning
Also the fact that they take money on a game install wether or not that install generated any money is just dumb, most people would rather pay more as long as they have the guarantee that they only pay AFTER having made some profits
Even with the qualifiers, it makes it super hard to make any financial projections as your profits are totally uncorrelated to the fees you’ll have to pay
First of all if you’re a poor (and possibly solo) developer who could only spring for the lowest tier you’re being charged the highest rate per install. That rate is 20 cents… per install… not per purchase… per install. If I buy the game once and install it on my desktop machine, my laptop, and my steam deck, the developer has to pay 60 cents. one of those computers breaks down and I need to reinstall the game, that’s an additional 20 cents every time. I have a young nephew who thinks nothing of installing a game to play for a day or two then uninstalling it to make room for another only to reinstall that first game again later. He does this with a lot of games… almost all of which are Unity games (I know, because he wants me to play these games with him quite often, so I see that logo pop up). Come January 1st, every time he installs that game, BOOM, developer owes 20 cents. My nephew isn’t special and, if he’s uninstalling and reinstalling games like that you can bet there’s 1000s of other kids doing the same! Hell, you don’t even have to be a kid. I might play a game for a few months, uninstall it, then reinstall it years later. That’s another thing… this 20 cents is perpetual! As a developer, what happens when you’re done with your game? You do have the time or energy to maintain the game anymore? This pricing model doesn’t care. You abandoned your game 5 years ago? Don’t care, 100 people installed your game, you owe us $20!
I didn’t realize they never “per install” quite so literally. That does make a big difference and it’s a really weird way for them to charge.
Edit: Ok so according to another commenter your interpretation is common but wrong, and Unity clarified they mean the first install per customer only. So my position that this isn’t a big deal stands.
Do installs of the same game by the same user across multiple devices count as different installs? We treat different devices as different installs. We don’t want to track identity across different devices.
So, again, if I install the game on 3 different devices, Unity considers that 3 installs. If I build a new computer later, then reinstall the game there, it’ll count as a new install. The scary thing is… what if someone hates you as a developer? They now only need to buy your game once, then setup a script to roll VMs and install your game on VMs (each VM counts as a seperate device), and you, as the developer, will be hit with the new install cost each time.
Additionally…
Does the Unity Runtime Fee apply to pirated copies of games? We are happy to work with any developer who has been the victim of piracy so that they are not unfairly hurt by unwanted installs.
The issue here is… the developer would already have been charged the fee for a “pirated” install, because, how is a developer supposed to even know their game was pirated in the first place. Here, the developer may already be financially hit for a pirated game and now has to spend time and resources with Unity to convince them that some percentage of installs are pirated installs. Earlier in their FAQ, Unity claims they do not have a “phone home” when a Unity game is run, so, how are they determining installs in the first place? “Aggregate data”… or, another words, “trust us”.
Im some cases I could see how this could destroy someone’s livelihood and people have killed over that sort of thing before. But my guess is that the people sending the death threats probably aren’t even developers.
What’s more curious to me is what kind of people are those that resort to such lows?
I mean they might have mental issues,yes,but it’s scary to see that people seemingly intelligent and able to create games (asset flipping not included) can have such low morals and problem solving capabilities.
engadget.com
Top