Until CDNs enable ECH on their servers this makes little practical difference

The reason there's been no ECH available for public use is not because the software does not exist

Meta's WhatsApp app under certain network conditions will try to bypass Android VPN settings using Google Public DNS servers even when (a) the OS settings "Always-on VPN" and "Block connections without VPN" are enabled, (b) port 53 is forwarded to a local address,^1 (c) DNS settings under "Network details" for the router point to local addresses only and (d) "Mobile data" is disabled for the SIM and the phone has no access to cellular data (e.g., MMS will fail)

Even the Google pre-installed system apps don't do this

Meta's attempts to conduct surveillance go further than ignoring the sec-gpc header. Meta tries to bypass Android's built-in VPN and the system DNS settings

I use a computer I can reasonably control, i.e., one running an OS I compiled myself, as the gateway for the phone so traffic destined for 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 is blocked by the gateway's firewall. (TLS forward proxy on the gateway also adds sec-gpc header to all HTTP/HTTPS traffic^2)

1. For example, using PCAPDroid or NetGuard

2. In addition to HTTPS traffic, Meta's WhatsApp app sends some requests over unencrypted HTTP, too, e.g., destined for c.whatsapp.net

As for the networking conditions required to reproduce this issue, bringing down the network interface on the gateway will trigger it for me

Do third party solutions like AdBlock prevent this?

It could be that HN commnter replying to submission about education in the United States indicating that he is "irked" by the term "democratisation" is not located within the United States but rather in a non-English speaking country not initiallu founded upon "democratic" principles (cf. United States) and with a dissimilar history of "democracy". As such, his interpetation of this term could have different meaning to him than the journalist working for The Atlantic who resides within the United States and is employed by one of its academic institutions

*initially

"America’s Census Bureau estimates that just 28% of firms in the San Francisco metropolitan area use AI regularly as part of their day-to-day operations. In America as a whole, adoption is much lower."

I prefer to use tmux non-interactively. For example, I use it for running daemons in the foreground, (textmode) screen scraping and scripting text-only browser

I do almost all interactive work while detached from tmux (personal preference)

I also rely on tmux buffers for a textmode "clipboard". I do not use x11

I've been using tmux since 2011 well before it became popular. I only use a fraction of its features

> I do almost all interactive work while detached from tmux

How come?

"Instead of the normal recordings telling people to either wait or cross the street, pedestrians heard the spoofed voices of billionaire tech CEOs. A fake Mark Zuckerberg said at one Menlo Park intersection that people would not be able to stop AI from “forcefully” being inserted “into every facet of your conscious experience.” At another, he celebrated “undermining democracy.” At a different intersection, an altered Elon Musk described President Donald Trump as “actually really sweet and tender and loving,” while on a nearby street his faked voice whined about being “so alone.”"

"A few days after the tampering in Silicon Valley, Seattle became the next victim. The recording there spoofed Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. “Please, please don’t tax the rich,” it said. “Otherwise all the other billionaires will move to Florida too. Wouldn’t it be terrible if all the rich people left Seattle—or got Luigi’d—and then the normal people could afford to live here again?""

"I think we’ve entered a stage where we need to almost entirely discount any claims made by the AI companies themselves until we can independently verify what’s actually going on."

in a perfect world... all of this "hype marketing" really exposes the bubble for what it is

"Not a new phenomenon!"

True, but I cannot find anything in the article that suggests such betting is a "new" phenomenon

Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN reply when the submission makes no explicit or implicit claims that the subject matter is "new", or that being "new" is significant

IMHO, the "this is not new" replies need further elaboration to clarify the point being made

It could be that these "this is not new" HN replies are not responding to the submission, its author or its subject matter but are instead focused on HN thread readers and other HN commenters and what those readers might think or how those commenters might react

If there is a submission or a comment that makes a claim such as "this is unprecedented", then a "this is not new" reply, preferably with supporting evidence, makes sense

But that's not what's going on here

> Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN...

Because articles like this tend to come with a implicit or explicit moral outrage.

So these comments are the equivalent of "yes... and?"

This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? “yes…and?” is a weak response to journalism intended to shine a light on something that causes moral outrage, especially given that “moral outrage” is justified on a highly subjective basis.

> This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to?

Is that a question or a statement?

Using a question mark in such a statement is a rhetorical device to indicate an implicit question, such as “did you intend to write a comment that sounded like an argument, yet only strengthened the argument of the comment you were responding to.” Conversationally, humans usually inflect the end of the sentence to indicate such uncertainty. Have you had a conversation with a human before?