While we're already breaking the HN guidelines—"Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats"—let me just say that the scrolljacking on this article is awful.
I've not intentionally implemented any scrolljacking (I'm using the default obsidian template), but I'm curious what you mean as I also don't see where the scrolljacking would happen. Could you elaborate on the way in which the user experience is awful now, so I can improve it?
What browser are you using? Can you describe the issue? Typically scroll jacking is when you hook on scroll to forcefully scroll the page to something, but that's not happening here.
> your average viewer is watching a chess match but not even understanding the basic moves
Your average viewer isn't tuning in to watch a chess match. You'll notice that professional chess doesn't have the same viewership as basketball.
Regardless of the mathematical strategies, it sucks to watch a bunch of three pointers getting missed. The NBA team average is 36% on 38 attempts per game. Thus, in an average game, there are 76 three-point attempts and 49 misses.
The worst is when they take and miss a three-pointer early in the shot clock, maybe even from the logo. Shoot, clunk, possession over, yawn.
> Green talked about a recent Warriors game against the Los Angeles Lakers and how it was "refreshing" to go against a thinker like LeBron James, who is notorious for finding weaknesses and exploiting them.
> "Every possession is some type of chess move," Green said. "You don't get that today in the NBA, often. ... You don't just get that on a regular basis. It's just who can run faster, who can hit more 3s. It's no substance. I think it's very boring."
So I agree that more complexity is not better and there’s a real risk of alienating fans with complicated schemes. But chess has made real inroads by providing good commentators and analysis. You can’t make teams play dumber but you can teach fans to be smarter.
As for missing, the video I linked debunks that. 3 pointers are replacing long 2 pointers which also had a low percentage. And in turn, the game has become less crowded and more spread out, leading to a higher percentage on dunks and layups. The pace has also dramatically increased, leading to more swings in scoring, which is pretty exciting.
Thinking Basketball is great. The people who complain about the 3s in basketball probably didn’t watch the NBA in the older days. Horrible defense and far less skill — and that’s the era I grew up and loved.
I have two major complaints about the game nowadays: (1) intentional fouling to get an advantage. It’s the only major sport where fouling can often work to your advantage.
(2) The block call is so inconsistent it might as well be a coin flip.
The end of a basketball game feels almost completely unwatchable for me when they devolve into constant fouling, stopping the game every couple of seconds.
There are possessions where the defense has the sole objective of ignoring everything other than fouling as fast as possible, which feels boring and can stretch 30 seconds of in game clock time to 5+ minutes of back to back stoppage. I get that it might be the mathematical best play because it forces the winning team to take free throws and then turn the ball over without taking any clock time, but they could architect the rules to avoid it.
I totally agree with the block call being a coin flip.... I'd extend it to almost every other call. NBA reffing seems like it absolutely sucks for such a large scale professional league. Basketball is a fast paced game so I know they can't catch everything, but when you're watching on TV you see so many things that are so inconsistently called. Those calls end up changing the outcome of the game when one team has 20 more ft chances than the other.
> (1) intentional fouling to get an advantage. It’s the only major sport where fouling can often work to your advantage.
nitpick: This happens in soccer as well. Oftentimes it's late in the game and you see the opponent has a counterattack that has a high probability of scoring. In that case, it's better for you to tactically foul them by taking them down before they reach your box and take the yellow card.
Came here to say this. It doesn’t have to be late in the game. The whole time tactical fouls is a valuable tool for defense. You try to make it non-violent enough and, when it’s a counterattack, early enough so the referee might not interpret as a foul to prevent a counterattack, so you don’t get a yellow card.
Also, exchanging a certain goal for a penalty+red card is a very common defense tactic. Check Uruguay vs Ghana, World Cup 2010.
Horrible defense? You're kidding, right? Check out the mid-80's - 90's - early 2000's Bulls, Knicks, Celtics, 76'ers, and Pistons, or basically any team east of the Mississippi. The 95-96 Bulls were the best defensive team in NBA history. No one's played defense in the NBA for 20 years at least. And yeah, the 3 has completely changed the game into something more resembling NBA 2K1, which is exactly what the league wants.
Completely agree, but I would add the incessant need for counting, 3 seconds, 8 seconds, 24 seconds. But the current fouling situation really needs to be fixed urgently.
The defense was much more on point back in the ‘90s because the defenders were allowed to be more physical without fouls getting called left and right. Nowadays it’s all a travesty, you’ve got scoresheets like 145-135 and nobody blinks an eye about it.
besides 7-footers chucking 3’s what “skills” do these new nba players have? there are maybe 10 that have any skills, the rest can shoot and that’s about fucking it.
90% of today’s players would play in D league two decades ago
Are you thinking the salary cap hasn't changed from the 90s? The MLE is 12.3m this year, and that is a high-end role player. If one plays at that level for 8 years, they make that amount you're complaining about. And the cap is expected to go up significantly over the next few years (would have gone up more drastically, but the KD to Warriors situation convinced teams to adopt smoothing).
It is true that in general, super stars are underpaid, and role players are overpaid.
> As for missing, the video I linked debunks that. 3 pointers are replacing long 2 pointers which also had a low percentage.
I'd much rather watch NBA players miss 3's than watch a 23 minute YouTube video of someone talking about missing 3's. ;-) But the NBA FG% in 2025 is 46.5%, while it was 49.1% in 1985, so I'm skeptical that 3 pointers are simply replacing long 2 pointers with equal percentages. Obviously the % would go down the farther you get from the basket.
> And in turn, the game has become less crowded and more spread out, leading to a higher percentage on dunks and layups
Crowding is not necessarily bad. A contested shot is interesting; an uncontested shot, not so much. Even uncontested dunks are less interesting than contested dunks.
That's not a huge difference. 3% is like an average of 3 extra misses, which is probably not even that noticeable with variance. 3 pointers are not replacing 2 pointers with equal percentages, but they are creating opportunities for higher percentage 2 pointers.
> Crowding is not necessarily bad. A contested shot is interesting; an uncontested shot, not so much. Even uncontested dunks are less interesting than contested dunks.
That's because you're thinking of a really cool dunk, not a big man backing down his man for like 20 seconds and throwing up a clanker that gets rebounded into another 20 second post possession. Realistically that's what a lot of offense was like back in the day. There's just selective nostalgia for the really cool plays.
> That's not a huge difference. 3% is like an average of 3 extra misses
More like 5 extra misses per game.
And we're getting more uncontested misses today.
> a big man backing down his man for like 20 seconds and throwing up a clanker that gets rebounded into another 20 second post possession. Realistically that's what a lot of offense was like back in the day.
But this clearly wasn't happening 64% of the time.
The irony is that contemporary players are better shooters. Yet their overall shooting % is lower, because they're consistently taking longer, harder shots.
If shooting and defense got better simultaneously, then all other things equal, overall shooting % should have stayed about the same, not gone down.
Also, as hardwaregeek mentioned: "And in turn, the game has become less crowded and more spread out, leading to a higher percentage on dunks and layups."
The 3’s are not replacing 2’s at the same shot percentage. The 3’s are slightly lower percentage, but they are high enough that the overall value is higher than the long 2’s they replaced. They came to the conclusion that the long 2 was a high risk play so they replaced it with a comparable play with a higher reward. It’s common sense. Frankly, it’s the long 2 that’s a stupid play.
The video is worth watching and I’m not even a basketball fan. It shows parts of 3 games from 3 eras back to back and it’s really interesting. Personally, I find the modern game to be the most engaging.
The skill level of the guys who aren’t superstars is clearly much higher than the old days. Outside of the stars, you had guys with certain body types that were pretty much one dimensional. It was neat seeing a big guy like Jokic in the video making ridiculous passes and hitting 3’s. Twenty years ago, all he would have done is hang out 4 feet from the basket.
I remember seeing part of a game in about 1985. IIRC, it was the Jazz against the Knicks. Utah won, something like 86-82. The Knicks offense was laughably bad. They came down the floor, wound up standing around the perimeter of the key, all five of them, each with a defensive player in front of them. They passed the ball around that perimeter. Nobody moved; they just stood there. Eventually somebody shot.
I know it was late in the game and people were tired. The shooting percentage may have been reasonably high. I don't care. That's terrible offense. And horrifically boring.
Draymond Green is the Joe Rogan of the NBA. He's just optimizing for engagement and controversy.
If it were truly as you say, those players would get pulled. Logo 3s are rare. And when someone heats up and hits multiple consecutive, it's anything but boring.
I personally dislike Green because of his on-the-court antics, but I don't think that comparison is fair. Rogan is a know-nothing meathead unqualified to challenge his guests, whereas Green is a veteran, elite, champion NBA player. His opinions, however controversial, have some basis in experience, expertise, and reality.
> If it were truly as you say, those players would get pulled.
Why? The mathematics are still on their side, due to the percentages and the value of the 3. I never claimed that jacking up 3's is irrational; I'm just claiming that it's ugly.
If I were commissioner, I'd abolish the 3. Then they can shoot logo 2's if they want. ;-)
Is there some magic percentage that must be passed to justify your aesthetic demands? I think the fact that guys like Dame hit 1/3, and seem to hit even more in the clutch, is wildly entertaining.
1) It's loud, a lot louder than tennis. Tennis balls have felt, and tennis racquet strings have some flexibility, whereas pickleball uses a hard paddle and an unpadded ball. People who live near courts complain about the noise from pickleball.
2) Pickleball is coming to monopolize the local courts, making them inaccessible by tennis players.
3) Pickleball involves less running and physical fitness than tennis.
Point 1 is absolutely a downside, at least for people near the court. The city decided that putting a pickleball court across the street from my building would be a great idea, and now my summers are filled with the pock-pock-pock of pickleball. From 9am to 8pm nearly every day that is nice. Also, since we cannot have nice things / people are assholes, they had to come back and put up an 8 foot tall fence because people were simply stepping over the shorter fence and playing until after midnight.
> Point 2 is neither here nor there. If all those people were playing tennis instead, the courts would be equally inaccessible.
The problem is that the courts were built only for tennis, often many decades ago. Now pickleball has adopted the same courts rather than using different courts of its own, so there are two sports competing for the same existing volume of courts. And since the tennis courts already exist, there's a lot less incentive and motivation for communities to spend money and other resources, such as land, building brand new courts to handle the new pickleball players.
Imagine if tennis and basketball used the same courts; that would be a major problem.
> Point 3 could be a positive!
Not in one of the most obese countries in the world.
Actually I think it’s an upside even then. It’s a lot easier for someone who’s out of shape to start trying pickleball compared to a lot of sports since you don’t need to run as long. Once someone starts to get in shape, they can still get plenty of exercise playing pickleball (I’ve even seen several people at my local court using weighted vests to make the game more of a workout).
> Not in one of the most obese countries in the world.
Obesity is primarily resolved through diet, not through exercise. It is exceedingly difficult to lose weight through cardio. Not only do calories take a drastically greater amount of effort to burn than to consume, but exercise directly increases hunger.
> Imagine if tennis and basketball used the same courts; that would be a major problem.
It would only be a problem if you closed half the courts. Otherwise it would better spread the load over the existing courts.
And if twice as many people started wanting to play tennis it would be the same problem as if they want to play Pickleball on tennis courts. It's just gatekeeping tennis courts.
>2) Pickleball is coming to monopolize the local courts, making them inaccessible by tennis players.
I'm not a player of either, but from walking around the courts at our city park, I'd say (in our area at least) it is the opposite: Tennis is making pickleball courts inaccessible to pickleball players. It is NOT uncommon to see the 4 pickleball courts packed, and 1 or both of the tennis courts empty. Our neighborhood tennis courts are basically never used, they are tennis only.
It's nice (admittedly, not living directly adjacent to courts) to see them used by pickleball rather than just sitting there idle.
Point 1 above does seem to be a real problem. I gather there are ball/racket combinations that can help, and also curtain solutions that can help?
The same way that pickleball is making the tennis courts inaccessible (the statement I was replying to). Specifically in the case I'm talking about, the park used to have 4 tennis courts, 2 of them were converted into 4 pickleball courts. There's a serious case to be made, from casual observation, that the city should have converted 3 or even 4 of the tennis courts into 6 or 8 pickleball courts, given that there is almost always 100% pickleball court penetration when we're out walking. Not saying we should do away with the tennis courts, I'm just saying there's a case for it.
Also tennis has some of the best aesthetics of any amateur sport where pickleball is somehow more sexless than ping pong. It's fun tho. Truly a game for our time.
Indeed, and a lot of the time the more casual players often bring stereos or speakers to the courts and blast music.
It's incredibly annoying. A park near me tore up one tennis court and erected 2 pickle courts, and the people that play on those pickle courts are loud and obnoxious and blast music all the time.
Note: I am a lifelong tennis player. I detest pickleball. Is it great to see new people playing a sport and getting active? Yes. Does it have to come at the expense of proper etiquette of sports that have been around much longer? No, but it currently is.
Pickleball makes way more sense than tennis as a tax-funded public good. It's a much more accessible game, and you can fit 16 players in a space that would most often be consumed by 2 playing tennis.
And pickleball is popular enough in my city that you'll fill those courts.
> Pickleball makes way more sense than tennis as a tax-funded public good.
To some who live nearby, it's a public nuisance rather than a public good, but in any case nobody is saying build more tennis courts. They already exist from past investment. The problem is when the existing tennis courts are cannibalized. If pickleball is worth public investment, they can build new courts. We shouldn't have to sacrifice one for the other.
Loud grunting is not pervasive in tennis, especially not in amateur tennis. You may hear it more in professional tennis, because it's a specific offensive technique that seemed to have originated from famous trainer Nick Bolletteri, a number of whose students such as Monica Seles and Maria Sharapova were among the loudest grunters on the pro tours. Many consider the exaggerated grunting to be a form of cheating and wish that the existing tennis "hindrance" rule were called against it much more often in professional matches.
> Sources also told CNBC that employees who might otherwise leave because of their disillusionment with policy changes are concerned about quitting now because of how they will be perceived by future employers given that Meta has said publicly that it’s weeding out “low performers.”
I agree completely. When I saw the writing on the wall for me at Amazon around May 2023 and a former coworker told me I would be crazy to quit then even if I did have another job lined up and miss out on a vesting period and I should wait for the “try to work through the PIP Or ‘leave immediately’ and get almost 4 months pay”.
I played the game waiting for the PIP offer.
For those who don’t know, once you get a PIP from Amazon you can try to work through it or take the severance offer immediately. If you fail the PIP (and you will) you get 1/3 of the original amount. If you appeal the failure and lose (you will) you get 1/3 of the 1/2.
So if I'm getting this right, the basis for your career advice essay comments ad nauseum is.. getting hired by Amazon and PIPed after a couple years? Fucking lol.
No my career advice is to focus on moving closer to the customer or stakeholders, don’t be a “ticket taker” and work on projects that show “scope”, “impact” and “dealing with ambiguity”,
The other half is live below your means, invest and have a 9-12 month cash cushion.
But everyone who works in BigTech knows that severance packages are nothing to sneeze at
tl;dr It is very highly correlated to U-3. The paper doesn't include 2024 in the data series but the figure the article cites, 23.7%, is very near all-time best. That's pretty deceptive framing IMO.
I feel like you both may be missing the point. The article isn't just about the present. It takes a very long view:
> The problem isn’t that some Americans didn’t come out ahead after four years of Bidenomics. Some did. It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks
> The bottom line is that, for 20 years or more, including the months prior to the election, voter perception was more reflective of reality than the incumbent statistics.
In other words, the official statistics have been misleading for a very long time, misleading in the sense of not showing the true hardships of the economy on the voters.
"Year X is better/worse than Year Y" is not really the point.
The proposed measure is highly correlated with U-3, so as time-series they should basically tell the same story. If the assertion is "U-3 doesn't predict this phenomenon but this other measure does" it's likely to be wrong since the signals are roughly equal to a constant factor. For the entire data range depicted in the paper this property holds. Is it possible that back in $GOOD_OLD_DAYS this isn't true? Well I'd like to see the data but I don't have time to chase it down and none has been offered to support that claim.
> It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks
Then they should have made up a new number that proves that point rather than making up a new number that seems to imply the opposite.
> In other words, the official statistics have been misleading for a very long time, misleading in the sense of not showing the true hardships of the economy on the voters.
There is a relevant official statistic: the poverty statistic.
Their proposed unemployment rate tracks the official rate fairly well; the difference is that their rate is a lot higher than the official rate at almost every point in time over the past 30 years.
The author also notes that the rates can vary significantly by circumstances, such as geographical location, race, and educational attainment. Increasingly, in recent times, the Democrat/Republican voter divide is becoming a college degreed/non-degreed divide.
It's the author's argument. I'm just trying to interpret it correctly.
> X + Y is generally higher than just X, yes.
The author's point is that their rate, the higher rate, is a better reflection of how the voters are doing economically and explains why their perception of the economy can be very different than the perception of many leaders in Washington, who are puzzled about why the voters are upset.
>The author's point is that their rate, the higher rate, is a better reflection of how the voters are doing economically and explains why their perception of the economy can be very different than the perception of many leaders in Washington, who are puzzled about why the voters are upset.
Right, but that doesn't explain why voters are suddenly mad now. American consumer sentiment has deviated from "fundamentals" since the pandemic[1].
Who says they're suddenly mad now? The voters have thrown out two incumbent Presidents in a row and switched political parties three Presidential elections in a row.
Unfortunately for them, there's a political duopoly.
The "data" either supports their claim or it doesn't. They've defined a new metric, now they can back up their claim by showing how this metric has changed over the last 20 years.
> As a result, users must rely on their provider’s pinky-promise that none of their data is logged. Yet even a provider that keeps true to its promise can suffer a security breach and be compromised.
2-Party Relay:
> This splits “who you are” from “what you do”, meaning neither party can tie your identity to your browsing.
Ok, but... don't users have to reply on their provider’s pinky-promise that the two parties won't cooperate with each other and share their separate data, thereby connecting the dots? After all, the two parties are already cooperating to an extent, so why can't they cooperate even more, either voluntarily or at the command of some hostile government?
In the extreme case that Obscura and Mullvad are forced to cooperate, you're right that this is the case. However, this is strictly (and much) less likely than a _single_ party being pressured or even a single party's infrastructure being hacked.
Another important thing to note: in our App, you can check your connected server’s public key against those listed on Mullvad’s server page, since we use the same servers as Mullvad's normal ones. It would be unheard of for a VPN provider (let alone a trustworthy one like Mullvad) to give their WireGuard private keys to a new partner.
> less likely than a _single_ party being pressured or even a single party's infrastructure being hacked.
Since Obscura uses a custom QUIC-based (?) protocol, you'd need to use their custom made (open core) app to pay & register with both Obscura & Mullvad. That means, all your apples are in their app-basket, which is built entirely by a single-party?
Private Relay, otoh, seems like a 3 party setup (Apple, Cloudflare, Akamai)?
Well they do cooperate with each other. They are partners, working together to provide the service, and sharing the cost. But you have to trust that if they are trying to attack you, they do it separately...?
Ridiculous, as you point out this doesn't increase my trust at all.
No. It seems very likely that if Mullvad wanted to identify some traffic, they would be able to get some metadata information from you, their partner. Your entire product depends on theirs.
> Ok, but... don't users have to reply [rely] on their provider’s pinky-promise that the two parties won't cooperate with each other and share their separate data, thereby connecting the dots?
>
Yes. On the other hand, it does complicate things for the attacker, whether it is internal (the orgs) or external - a 3rd party attacker would have to compromise both orgs instead of one.
> After all, the two parties are already cooperating to an extent, so why can't they cooperate even more, either voluntarily or at the command of some hostile government?
Voluntarily: If you look at the business incentives that wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Forced by government: Here I'd say look at the jurisdictions of the orgs.
> Here I'd say look at the jurisdictions of the orgs.
Per Covert Surveillance Act passed in 2020, looks like Sweden (where Mullvad is based) can ask communication providers / website services to secretly add or assist with backdoors?
... Where the identity of the suspect is not known, but his contacts are known, or a third party (such as a website which the suspects visits) is known, one can permit secret data reading of these contacts, or the third party, but only in order to identify the suspect. Only (stored) historical metadata, not real-time data or communications and not by means of activation of audio or video surveillance functions can be used for this (section 4b).
In short, "Mullvad is thus not covered by either the data storage provisions in the LEK for operations subject to a reporting obligation, or the duty to cooperate pursuant to the Covert Surveillance of Data Act."
But it could be interpreted contrarily - that VPN services through, for example, encryption via signals that the VPN service itself has power over through agreements with subcontractors, etc. could possibly be seen as an electronic communications service ...
And I'm not just talking about Mullvad VPN (the "electronic communication service" provider), but Mullvad AB, which also hosts websites and builds apps (like the browser and VPN clients), too.
So, is the "law doesn't apply" a fact? If so, may want to reword this bit on your website to make that much clear:
[Mullvad's] opinion is that the reasonable interpretation is that a VPN service is not to be considered as an electronic communications service based on previous legislative history.
If not, due to the "covert" nature of the Act, if Mullvad was coerced to co-operate with the govt, it seems Mullvad couldn't even publicly talk or hint about it (like warrant canaries, for example)?
I'm writing this on my phone and for whatever reason can't find the passages that you're quoting. Are they in the same article that I linked?
In any case, to my knowledge the law in question doesn't apply to us. If the Swedish government tried to argue otherwise we'd get our lawyers involved.
Having said all of this, I am concerned about National Security Letters and similar concepts. Technologies like reproducible builds, transparency logs, and remote attestation can help there.
> to my knowledge the law in question doesn't apply to us
Fair. This isn't the official Mullvad position, then (which is that the law may apply)?
The "Communication provider" part aside, another source (quoted above) makes it explicit that backdooring "websites" (Mullvad has a website) are fair game, btw.
> If the Swedish government tried to argue otherwise we'd get our lawyers involved
I don't doubt you would. Given the "covert" nature of the Act, Mullvad's arguments & Sweden's counter-arguments and the outcome from it (backdoors, compromises, coercion etc) will be kept a state secret. That is, there doesn't seem to be a way for the public to independently ascertain the claim that the Mullvad did fight and indeed "the law didn't apply"? [0]
> reproducible builds, transparency logs, and remote attestation
Much needed (:
Per Mullvad's posts, the Act seems to grant wide-ranging powers to Swedish authorities, including installing hardware & other sorts of physical compromises (which no amount of software mitigations would thwart, I don't think).
[0] Focusing on the premise: "Forced by government: Here I'd say look at the jurisdictions of the orgs."
> Fair. This isn't the official Mullvad position, then (which is that the law may apply)?
I'm pretty sure our official position is that it doesn't apply, rather than it may apply. Note that the article on our website that I quoted is more recent than the one you quoted. I can't find a more recent legal opinion than that.
Regarding backdooring websites, that's interesting. I'll have to ask someone about that. Thanks.
> the outcome from it (backdoors, compromises, coercion etc) will be kept a state secret
I am not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The first-order outcome would be a court case that says the law applies to VPNs, or not. The second-order outcome would be secret coercion in a specific criminal case, or nothing. The first-order outcome would be public. Interesting question though. I'll have to ask about this too.
> Much needed (:
Yes. :)
It might interest you to know that I've spent the past six years working on things like that. My role at Mullvad since several years is only strategic, as I spend almost all of my time on applied research. See glasklarteknik.se and tillitis.se.
> (which no amount of software mitigations would thwart, I don't think)
Physical security is hard. However, I see no reason to limit ourselves to only software-based mitigations.
> Regarding backdooring websites, that's interesting. I'll have to ask someone about that. Thanks
No, thank you! I look forward to an update on Mullvad's help/blog on this.
> The first-order outcome would be a court case that says the law applies to VPNs, or not.
My contention was, Mullvad AB (the other parts of its services like the app, the browser, the website, & the parts of its infrastructure like its control plane that isn't running the VPN) is already subject to 2020:62 (the Act) in ways which may remain secret, if enforced. I'm not an expert in Swedish law, but also, I'm not sure who else to ask.
For example, here's some revealing text (on just who 2020:62 applies), from a 3p source I linked to in my first reply:
The possibility for the police and security police to use spyware was introduced by the Act (2020:62) on Secret Reading of Data. For domestic purposes, secret data reading means that "information, which is intended for automated processing, is secretly and with technical means, read from or recorded in a readable information system".
"Readable information system" in turn means "an electronic communication device or a user account for, or a correspondingly delimited part of, a communication service, storage service or similar service".
Thus, it covers both physical equipment, such as a mobile phone or a computer, as well as a user account to, or a correspondingly delimited part of, a communication service, storage service or similar service.
Note that "electronic communication service" is just ONE of the 3 entities subject to 2020:62, per that source. The legal language is pretty wild and pretty wide, imo. Which brings me to...
> The first-order outcome would be a court case that says the law applies to VPNs, or not ... would be public.
May not matter as Mullvad AB might decisively meet other criteria laid out in 2020:62 (the Act). That is, regardless of whether Mullvad "VPN" is subject to 2020:62, Mullvad as a business building all kinds of other software might be.
> only software-based mitigations
True. Thanks for being so patient. I tried to send follow-up queries to you folks via PrivacyGuides, but for some reason they didn't & in fact, they stonewalled, & even deleted/removed posts on the topic. Now that I'm hearing from you directly, I feel that much more assured.
I guess, it pays to go direct rather than fight it out on some forum with gatekeepers.
> tillitis.se
Dang... didn't realise 'twas you folks. Amazing.
> glasklarteknik.se
Eventually expect Mullvad severs to experiment with either microkernels (ala Fuschia) or unikernels, to replace the monolith that is Linux Kind of like (the uber sophisticated) OpenVPN vs. (leaner, meaner) WireGuard.
It is worth noting that your second quote is from a blog posted in May 2020, and the link that kfreds posted is from their follow-up blog post, dated July 2020.
> Tangentially, I think Apple could gain a lot by employing Jeff Johnson (the author of this and other posts) for improving the user experience of its products and services. I’m not sure if Jeff would find it fulfilling though.
I'm not special, just loud. If Apple cared enough to hire me, they wouldn't need to hire me.
reply