ggppjj

Sorry, this comment was mainly just providing the previous user with a correction because they seemed to think that the other person that they were replying to was talking about forcing people to use phone apps, which I assume we all agree is bad and would likely work if there were a concentrated push for it.

Concerning your points after "using the browser": I want websites to use replaceState and manage their own intra-page navigation with a cookie. They can still intercept the back button as they do now, but they should only get the single history entry until they switch to a new page, if they ever do.

I don't think I'm disputing your facts, I was responding to the scenario you presented which was, essentially, "what about email". I would say it's fair that my opinion on a canonical browser history is solid and unlikely to change, though.

I think the word 'app' was being used in place of 'webapp' there, which is the general target audience for this feature.

I don't think that email and browser history are similar enough to make a meaningful comparison, honestly.

Maybe someone could say that, but I am not.

I see a specific instance of a specific bad feature being specifically abused. I don't care to entertain whatabouts.

I accept that it's how things are, I just personally feel as though the only way this feature could ever work as it does now is with the implementation it has now, and that the convenience of single page webapps that use history manipulation is not worth the insane annoyance of helping my grandma get out of websites that tell her that she has been hacked by the FBI.

I'm frustrated that removing bad functionality is being treated as a slippery slope with obviously bad and impossible jokes as the examples chosen.

I see a bad feature being abused, and I don't see the removal of that bad feature as a dangerous path to getting rid of email. I don't ascribe the same weight that you seem to towards precedent in this matter.

It's the Handset Protocol/Handsfree Protocol that was developed for simultaneous sending and receiving of voice data. They're the only protocols that support sending and receiving voice at the same time, and they do that by sending mono telephone quality audio and receiving mono telephone quality audio.

It's why most gaming headsets, even ones with Bluetooth, include a small RF dongle separately. Bluetooth is technically incapable of high-quality audio when recording.

Well, the Starlink could be connected by an admin to a computer that is connected to SIPRNet, right? It exposes itself as just a router.

I mean, assuming the Starlink was brought on board by someone with authorization to be on board, any possible adversarial situation would necessarily be an internal issue to begin with.

Personally, I think the most likely answer involves an Xbox.

Until we can finally kill HSP/HFP, I'm never gonna be happy with Bluetooth. Using a headset mic shouldn't blast you back to the telephone era.

You can't connect a star link to siprnet.

Can you connect a computer? Because if so, that same computer can then be connected to the starlink, no?

I know absolutely nothing about secure government networking, I'm just kind of assuming that something has to be able to connect to both individually and also simultaneously.

I'm a self-taught C# dev, I've found tremendous success specifically just describing what I want to do in dumb language that I'd feel stupid asking people IRL about and that aren't googleable without knowing what both the terms "null-coalescing" and "non-merchandise supergroup" are describing.

There are a lot of patterns that don't have obvious names and that aren't easily described without describing a specific scenario in a way that might only make sense institutionally, or with additional context that your average person might not have. ChatGPT is fairly good at being the "buddy that you have a bunch of in-jokes with that can remember things better than you". I can skip a lot of explaining why I need to do a thing a certain way like I can with my coworkers (who all aren't programmers), and I can get helpful answers for programming questions that my coworkers don't know the answers to.

It's frustrating to see this incredibly advanced context-aware autocorrect on steroids get used in ways that don't acknowledge the inherent strengths of what LLMs are actually great at doing. It's infuriating to have that potential be actively misused and packaged as a service and have that mediocre service sold to you once a month as a necessity by idiots in suits watching a line on a chart.

They don't seem to provide a source for that. It's probably fake, and also this post is frustratingly clickbaity for my tastes.