I think you missed the proverbial point. We likely slaughtered the chimps and put their heads on pikes. Chimps have nothing on the violence humans are capable of inflicting.
Yeah the context is that many indigenous people depended on the buffalo for food.
It was basically the same as when Israel pours concrete down wells and burns olive groves that took centuries to get that productive. They knew for every buffalo they killed, an indian would starve.
That image is similar to the rooms full of luggage in Auschwitz in what it represents.
I remember a documentary about a famous northwest passage expedition that was never seen again. One of the inuit people they talked to during an investigation claimed they found a boat, and in the captain's quarters they found a body in the bed with a big smile on its face. That would be absolutely terrifying, but apparently that's what naturally happens to corpses when their lips and gums receed.
You've just ruined my night. I screamed. My phone was like an inch from my face and I was all tucked into bed. That triggered something primaly unsettling for me. Thank you
You're right though, as soon as someone dies, there's something not right at all about how they look. They don't look asleep, they look uncanny valley.
Though you may be right, I have a feeling that he is facing formidable opposition. That may include anything from social engineering to full on psyops.
Bet he’s had people “happen” to bump into him IRL, and gets pull requests from bad actors that are very subtly trying to take the project in the wrong direction.
What's "Mordor Intelligence" -- is that a real thing, or a parody of the surveillance/'defense' industry companies that are coming up with names nicked from LotR? ('Anduril', 'Palantir')
https://www.mordorintelligence.com/
They appear to be a real thing. Though naming yourself after the most evil thing in middle earth is a bit in the nose lol.
Your second point is especially interesting, considering the recent xz backdoor. The bad actors manipulated a poor burnt out maintainer for it. In comparison, I'm impressed with gorhill for his perseverance and mental strength. I would like to know how he avoids burn out with such negative influences.
Insightful point. And it does remind me of the corporate purchase of the Don't care about cookies extension for Firefox (And the Simple Mobile Tools for Android). Luckily it was forked. https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies Open source FTW!
🙂 🐧
The VLC guy turned down what a quick search is telling me was “several tens of millions” to show ads. I can’t even imagine what getting people to drop ublock would be worth.
There is and isn't one. For the add-on itself, you just need forks and more forks. For the lists it pulls from, those are already decentralized, but you're constantly going to deal with the issue of only the best are used and only the used are maintained and only the maintained are the best.
The format currently used in adblocker predates uBO by almost a decade so no, but still, maintaining this add-on with how fast and often web browser changes, and keeping it performant must be quite the task.
I think performant is probably the key thing here. There were ad blockers before and there are alternative ones now, but the thing that sets unlock Origin apart is how light weight it is.
Of course they didn’t. They literally had every establishment democrat coordinatedly drop out of the primaries in exchange for cabinet positions to throw their support behind Biden when Sanders started winning the primaries in 2020. Like, it’s been clear they’d learned nothing. And thanks to the idiotic two party system, they got rewarded for that maneuver with the opportunity to say “we told you so! Look, we got trump out of office!” And when they lose this time…they won’t learn a goddamn thing. Again.
luckily, they won't have to learn a thing if trump wins, because MAGAts will stack the odds so much in their favor that no dem will win a presidential election in many years. yay project 2025!
Why doesn't anyone call him out on lying about running for a second term? I very vividly remember hearing him say in 2020 that he would not seek reelection and yet here we are.
Yeah, I don't get it. I was confused and not happy when I saw he was running again. He could've gone out like a heavily watered down LBJ, instead he's going to be forever remembered as the lost nursing home patient who wandered onto the debate stage. This is an unmitigated disaster, and the only way forward I see now is have Joe step down and let Kamala be the president. I'm not excited for that prospect, but I assume she can at least win a debate against a potted plant.
Just went ahead and Googled it and I can find no credible source that he actually said these words at any time. So, if you'd like to bandy out that source, I think we'd all appreciate it.
No, your own source states that that was never announced. It was talked about within the party. There was never a public announcement to the American people stating that he would not run as an incumbent. Every source reporting on that was and is reporting on unsubstantiated hearsay never set into stone.
I would vote for a wet sandwich before I vote for Trump, but Jesus Christ, it would be nice if the democrats fucking tried.
why should they? you're going to give them what they want from you anyways in november and multiple novembers into the future; there's literally no reason for them to ever bother.
Remember when a bunch of people didn't vote because the Democrat candidate was a piece of shit? And then trump won? And then the democratic party said "oh wow we should put up actual candidates instead of decrepit neolibs" except they didn't because they didn't learn shit.
Democrats suffer from a condition that I've come to call "Democratic Realism," named after Capitalist Realism. No matter how much they get their shit kicked in. No matter how badly they do. No matter how little they accomplish. No matter how badly they look or do in debates. Democrats always believe, beyond a shred of doubt, that they'll win elections without trying. Not because of their own merits, but because they're just the only "real" choice; they simply can't fathom anyone willingly voting for their opponents.
Hillary barely campaigned in the "flyover states" that she needed to win because she couldn't be fucking bothered to actually try. It wasn't worth the effort to try and persuade people she thought of as her lessers. And the DNC just went "well, it's obviously her turn. She's been waiting for the chance at the presidency for 20 years now. We should go ahead and let her be president." Because that's the mentality. They don't have to "win" elections. They just pick a candidate and they get to win, because there is no "real" alternative. That Bush and Trump won don't indicate that, yeah, actually, you do have to fight for the people who are voting for you, otherwise they'll vote for the schmuck that appeals to their basest and most venal instincts. Those were just flukes...right? And you don't have to inspire confidence and admiration in others, because they should just recognize how smart and accomplished and inoffensive their candidates are, and that they're told to vote for them by people that are smarter than they are, so they should just shut up and do it.
It's a party driven less by any kind of ideological goals and more by a pervasive sense of smug, impotent, lazy egotism. And, yeah, they'll get a shitload of votes in the elections because the alternative always seems to be someone who is one goose-step shy of a literal Nazi. Biden will probably even win the popular vote. Y'know....just like Hillary did...
Good essay. I don't know if you remember after Obama won in 2008 a bunch of democratic party apparatchiks came up with this idea of "the coalition of the ascendant" and that they pretty much had the government locked in for a generation, due to support that would never waver for them amongst immigrants, yuppies, tech bros, etc. They didn't need the working class anymore and the Republicans would be the minority party for many years.
Two years later the democrats were wiped out in the midterms.
The coalition of the ascendant concept is kind of insane when you remember for a moment that the popular vote is kinda worthless in winning elections. The electoral college is structured in such a way that conservative whites have a larger share of the electorate relative to their minority peers. It doesn't matter if you're a lock for California and New York (enclaves of coastal elites and minorities alike) if you lose the entirety of the South, Southwest, and Midwest, enclaves of...the opposite of those things, really. This 538 article on it has links to other discussions related to this and represents a fascinating look into the relationship between popular votes and electoral votes. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/
They think they don't have to, they just have to keep you scared enough of the GOP that you'll vote for them out of terror. It's how Biden won the first time, after all.
You misunderstand the dynamic. Most GOP voters are going to vote and are going to vote for the Republican, regardless of how awful that Republican is. Voting is a civic duty and party above all are kinda core ideas for them.
Dem voters are a lot more flighty in general. Any barrier to voting no matter how small (even having to rise from the couch) impacts Dem voters more than GOP ones.
There are more Dem voters than GOP ones except maybe in very red states. It's about turnout - US voter turnout is God awful and it's worse among Dems than GOP.
That's why the debate was so bad for the Dems, because it's not about whether or not it pulls voters to Trump but about what it does to Dem turnout.
I see, sorry for misunderstanding. I've also heard about the problem with voting turnout. As a European, the whole US voting system just seems kinda obscure in general. Although, to be fair, the right party voters are also way more likely to vote here than the ones from other parties.
There was a show primary but candidates were essentially stonewalled from participating and voters browbeaten for not supporting Biden, which is why only wackos like RFK Jr are the only other people who ran.
Up until tonight, there really was little point. Biden already beat Trump, has the incumbent advantage, and has had a successful term. I'm still not convinced that replacing him suddenly this late is even remotely a good idea unlike a lot of people seem to be
Not American, but a furby surrounded by Biden's team would still be preferable to Trump to most people, so I'm not for this changes much. Americans around here seemed to mostly be in the "hold your nose and vote for Biden" camp anyway. Not sure how representative that is.
I see your post is missing the required 20,000 word essay in how the Republicans are worse then democrats... thus you are a secret Russian Republican antisemite!
I do love having to give a 2 paragraph disquisition of caveats about how I didn't vote for either major party candidate in 2016 or 2020, before I can make literally any comment on either of these people or the current state of US politics, lest I be downvoted into oblivion or accused of being an evil Repub shill.
Ironically when we do this on Lemmy we are qualifying ourselves to a cohort of mostly people who didn't vote at all, or aren't even Americans.
And remember how they made a big deal about Bernie's age in 2020? They asked for medical records, and even after getting letters from two or three doctors, that wasn't enough. It was like the birthers all over again: when they got what they asked for, they moved the goal posts and wanted the long-form documents.
Meanwhile, not a peep about Biden, who is Bernie's junior by fourteen fucking months, as if that made all the difference.
And then, four years later, it wasn't an issue anymore. Just run the guy again.
On top of that, the DNC would condescend to anyone left of center about electability.
It's far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn't even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.
There's a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn't require much of a change from their current business model.
Agreed, building a nuclear facility takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. However... This doesn't need to be the case at all.
A lot of the costs go into design, planning and legal work. The amount of red tape to build a nuclear plant is huge. Plus all of the parties that fight any plans to build, with a heavy not in my backyard component.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly. Back in the day we could build them faster and cheaper. And these days we build far more complex installations quicker and cheaper than nuclear power plants.
The anti-nuclear movement has done so much to hold humanity back on this front. And the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost.
You can't cut the red tape. The red tape is why we're able to say nuclear is safe.
the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost
Huh? Nuclear fusion doesn't have any downsides or upsides. Because it doesn't exist. We've never been able to generate net power with fusion. (No, not even that story from a couple of years ago, which only counted as 'input' a small fraction of the total energy used overall. It was a good development, but just one small step on the long journey to it being practical.)
Being anti-nuclear was a poor stance to have 20, 30 years ago. At that time, renewables weren't cost effective enough to be a big portion of our energy generation mix, and we should have been building alternatives to fossil fuels since back then if not earlier. But today, all the analysis tells us that renewables are far cheaper and more effective than nuclear. Today, being pro-nuclear is the wrong stance to take. It's the anti-science stance, which is why it has seen a recent rise among right-wing political parties and media organisations.
I have never heard being pro-nuclear is the anti science stance and it being on the rise among right wing political parties. All the right wing is talking about it more coal and less things to be done about the climate.
The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed and not anti science at all.
I believe nuclear can help us get to the future we want and we should have done it a lot sooner. Nuclear doesn't mean anti-renewable, both can exist.
Nuclear doesn’t mean anti-renewable, both can exist.
Not easily, for the reasons explained in my reply to @Frokke.
The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed
I doubt it, because the science itself is against nuclear. Evidence says it would be too expensive and take too long to deliver compared to renewables.
Very well, let's agree to disagree. Perhaps I am wrong. But I am in no way right wing or spreading misinformation.
The people I've spoken who work in the nuclear field bitch about unneeded red tape all the time. Some of it is important for sure, but a lot of it can be cut if we wanted to without safety becoming an issue. The price of nuclear has gone way up the past 20 years, whilst the knowledge and tools have become better. This makes no sense to me. We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can't we?
I'm all for renewables, I have solar panels. But I'm not 100% convinced we have grid storage figured out. And in the meanwhile we keep burning fossils in huge amounts. If we can have something that produces energy, without fucking up the atmosphere, even at a price that's more expensive than other sources (within reason) I'm all for that. Because with the price of energy from coal, the money for fixing the atmosphere isn't included.
We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can't we?
It's because we stopped building them. We have academic knowledge on how to do it but not the practical/technical know-how. A few countries do it because they're doing a ton of reactors, but those don't come cheap either.
Atkeast in my country, the only two pro-nuclear parties are fsr-right climate change deniers and the same old fucks who're only pro-nuclear because the green party isnt.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.
That's a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives....
The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.
The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.
For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years.......no.
Blah blah blah nobody wants to hear actual evidence and suggestions that solar and wind might be better. We're on a mission for Nuclear power damn the Fukushima refugees and who cares if we store the waste encased in concrete at the bottom of the ocean which we know will eventually leak into the food stream
Huh. So those of us that have always advocated for a nuclear baseline with wind/solar topping off until we have adequate storage solutions are climate change deniers? That's new.
First, no, that's not what I said. If you're only going to be arguing in bad faith like that this will be the last time I engage with you.
Second, baseload power is in fact a myth. And it becomes even worse when you consider the fact that nuclear doesn't scale up and down in response to demand very well. In places with large amounts of rooftop solar and other distributed renewables, nuclear is especially bad, because you can't just tell everyone who has their own generation to stop doing that, but you also don't want to be generating more than is used.
Third, even if you did consider it necessary to have baseload "until we have adequate storage", the extremely long timelines it takes to get from today to using renewables in places that don't already have it, spending money designing and building nuclear would just delay the building of that storage, and it would still end up coming online too late.
I used to be a fan of nuclear. In 2010 I'd have said yeah, we should do it. But every time I've looked into it over the last 10 years especially, I've had to reckon with the simple fact that all the data tells us we shouldn't be building nuclear; it's just an inferior option to renewables.
Aaaw, someone doesn't like the tone used? Well that's unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?
Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables won't be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.
False. Multiple countries are already able to run on 100% renewables for prolonged periods of time. The bigger issue is what to do with excess power. Battery solutions can cover moments where renewables produce a bit less power.
All the countries that manage 100% renewable power use high levels of hydropower. Which is not an option for many countries and has it's own ecological problems associated with it.
Also, these 100% renewable countries have very little electricity requirements.
The United States produces at least produces four million Gigawatt hours of electricity per year. Compare that to some of these "100% renewable" countries.
Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals.....
Just wait till you have to tell them they're looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they're also using data that doesn't support the long term fossil fuel goals.
Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we're transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.
Sure, most countries that already made it use hydro. But Denmark is already up tp 80% without hydro, and the UK and Germany are already nearly halfway there without any meaningful hydro. And there's still so much solar and wind that can still be installed. They're nowhere near their maximum production capacity yet.
100% from renewables is clearly feasible and achievable. Of course it takes time and investments, but nuclear energy will takre more time and investments to get going again.
Sorry to report, hydrogen is also hopeless. It’s cool tech, but making it work in practice is hopeless because it diffuses straight through every container you try and keep it in, and achieving reasonable energy densities requires cryogenic storage.
Also, developments have been stalling out relative to electrical solutions because of this and because of the heavy investment in electrics.
I can only see it really working in practice in niche applications where you will be close to cryogenic facilities.
Locking hydrogen up in ammonia is what the industry looks to be moving to to avoid the problem you describe.
Also, look up the 7 Hydrogen Hubs in the US as an example of this market getting started. There are no downsides to developing a hydrogen market if we're going to have oodles of excess renewable energy.
Locking hydrogen up in ammonia is what the industry looks to be moving to to avoid the problem you describe.
I believe we’re still using more hydrogen to make industrial ammonia than that we produce from green sources, so I guess even if we only switch over ammonia production without worrying about fuel cells or hydrogen vehicles or power generation, we still come out ahead.
Then there’s the hydrogen used in oil refining that, iirc, is still mostly sourced from methane, but I’m hesitant to suggest we replace that with green hydrogen since if you want to be carbon-negative the oil refining will have to go down A LOT anyway.
Anyway, I guess my point is that hydrogen is an important commodity for all sorts of things. Before we start burning it for energy it’s easier to use it as is in industrial processes. The methane we save that way (that would be used to produce industrial hydrogen) we can burn as is in existing gas power plants.
But this is the kind of pragmatic common sense thing that gets no one excited.
I mean, if anything, the fact that the Oil & Gas industry uses hydrogen for refining means that there is a possible, robust market for green hydrogen to get into (don't like this because it means oil is still the focus, when we need to consider green chemistry and stop with oil).
The O&G industry also helped usher in solar PV at an early stage because of the needs of remote power in hazardous environments such as offshore rigs and near potential sources of release like oil tanks (I used to work as an engineer in O&G myself).
There's actually a lot of work by GE and Mitsubishi to start shipping new gas turbines to be capable of firing a non-zero amount of hydrogen in addition to natural gas. I think some plants are even capable of doing 50/50 hydrogen/natural gas, with that former number increasing year over year.
Hydrogen could outstrip conventional fuels someday. The bottleneck has always been supply though.
If renewables are so abundant and cheap, then we'll finally have a reason to deploy hydrogen infrastructure on a massive scale (at least in the US). Hell, you look at the major inverter manufacturers for utility PV like Sungrow, and they have containerized electrolyzers ready for implementation. I haven't done a market survey, but if they're in the game, then so are other players.
If you want to be convinced of the progress of hydrogen, I would look into the project that Sargent & Lundy is working on in Utah. They're planning on using a salt cavern for hydrogen storage, and I believe there is a CCGT onsite as well to make use of the generation.
Hydrogen is even on the minds of offshore wind developers like Siemens.
The substance isn't doomed like others in this thread make it out. There is active interest in the market to develop a supply chain and economy.
Edit: The one thing I don't see a lot of people talk about though is where the raw materials for this hydrogen will come from... Likely groundwater unfortunately. Since groundwater is already a highly sought after resource for consumption and agriculture, I'm not sure if hydrogen in this way will take off. This is why offshore hydrogen seems to be more promising, but as we see with wave and tidal power, the ocean environment just sucks for any commercialization.
It's an uphill battle, but the same can be said for the climate crisis in general. Hope we make enough progress before it's too late.
There are a bunch. But solar panels have gotten a lot better in the last decades, whereas thermodynamics has remained the same. They are not worth the investment anymore.
Australian politicians have been arguing about nuclear energy for decades, and with whats going on now, petty distracting squabbling while state governments are gutting public infrastructure
The most frustrating thing is the antinuclear party is obviously fine with nuclear power, and nuclear armaments, just look at the aukus submarines
labors cries about the dangers to our communities and the environment are obviously disingenuous, or they wouldnt be setting a green light for the billionaire robber barons to continue tearing oil and minerals out of the ground (they promise to restore the land for real-sies this time)
Anyway, a nuclear power plant runs a steam turbine and will never be more than what, 30% efficient?
Photovoltaic cells are even less efficient, I think they're somewhere between 10-20% efficient. I think the way to go would be a solar collector, like the Archimedes death ray, but much much bigger.
That is already a thing and it's called concentrated solar power. Basically aim a shit load of mirrors at a target to heat it, run some working fluid through the target and use that to make steam to turn a turbine. There are a few power plants that use it but in general it has been more finicky and disruptive to the local environment than traditional PV panels would be.
There are designs for a giant glass cone put in the middle of the desert. Air under the cone gets warmed and it rises up through a couple turbines on its way out of the device.
The fantastic thing about renewables is how much they lend themselves to a less centralised model. Solar collector? Sure, why not‽ Rooftop solar on people's houses? You bet! Geothermal? If local conditions are favourable to it, absolutely!
Instead of a small number of massive power plants that only governments or really large corporations can operate individuals can generate the power for themselves, or companies can offset their costs by generating a little power, or cities can operate a smaller plant to power what operations in their city aren't handled by other means. It's not a one-size-fits-all approach.
This contrasts with nuclear. SMRs could theoretically do the same thing, but haven't yet proven viable. And traditional plants just put out way too much power. They're one-size-fits-all by definition, and only have the ability to operate alongside other modes with the other modes filling in a small amount around the edges.
I would remind you that Aukus is a mess of the Coalition's making - after they made a mess of the original submarine replacement project under Abbott and Turnbull, insisting on Diesel.
But for Labor to withdraw from Aukus would cause a shitstorm of unseen proportions.
No, you're right. It's not an option for everyone. Which is why I mentioned that there are many other solutions which are similar and over production which is simpler and cheaper
What? You don't have Google? Options I know of (other than batteries and pumped hydro) :
Compressed Air Energy Storage, Thermal Energy Storage,, Fly wheels, Hydrogen, Supercapacitors,
Gravitational Storage
Nobody wants energy stored for months. Whatever storage is used needs to get through temporary decreases in efficiency. In places that use solar, that means from one afternoon to the next morning. In places that use wind, it means until the wind picks up. We're talking storage on the order of tens of hours at the most.
The fact that you descend into complete science fiction should give you pause for thought. I doubt it will, but please think about how fantastical your proposed solutions are - "a massive lake of molten salt under every city" (I actually like that one!)...
Given you're making up things I never said I can only imagine what you're respinding to? Where did a massive lake of molten salt under every city come from?
Sorry this is a late reply. I can see that mentioning molten salt was a bit left-field, However, it is one of the more realistic ways to store the huge amounts of power needed to fuel an economy for a couple of weeks (which you need in northern europe/US if you want to use solar/wind). Here's a link about it:
I am pro nuclear, but if we are going to descend into this renewable hell, then we need to actually think about how you store terawatt-hours of power. I really think that this kind of storage might be the nearest we have to a solution. we'll only need it once we try to turn off the gas turbines, of course. It is fascinating that so many smart people don't see that the whole jigsaw is missing vital pieces.
Oil & Gas companies didn't want Solar, Wind, and Storage to proliferate, yet they did because of cost savings.
I think we could start to see that for these alternative-ion batteries if lithium supply ever becomes an issue. There will always be a niche that has the opportunity to grow in the economy. Just takes the right circumstances and preparation
Price driven consumption has been done by industrial users for decades. And countries like UK has been storing energy in storage heaters at home for decades as well. EVs can do wonders here.
Fuck I wish the politicians would give this to us straight like that.
Why is Albo's party spreading memes about three eyed fish instead of saying "yeah Dutton's nuclear plan is safe, but it maximises fossil fuel use in the short term and we'd prefer to focus on renewables"
No kidding! Glad someone gets it. A couple I know who Instagrammed their entire cross-Europe vacation last year couldn't understand why I don't want to travel at the same time as them this year even though we're going some of the same places 🤦♂️
Not yet, but it's not a chance I'd be willing to take. They have at least one neighbor who's supposedly been arrested for theft. He used to watch their dogs for them but when they found out they changed the locks.
Pi-hole is nice for devices that you don't fully control. But it's not enough, due to the fundamental limitations of DNS based blocking. If the ads and the content are hosted on the same domain, it can't do anything.
Also issues with links that get ads on top of them. You can still click them, you'll get redirected to a blank page (because the ad gets DNS blocked), but with an adblocker you would've gone to the non-ad link.
Both cannot be true friend, sorry. Your buddy is either a fake engineer or their main job isn't IT.
If you really have friends in IT they haven't used chrome or edge in a while, or their using the scripting bot for weekly progress reports to their boss, and they're only using it for that...
You don't want to start this conversation, it's a race to absolutism and purity tests at odds with one another. You say Firefox and someone comes in a calls you an idiot because you're not using a fully FOSS browser or one that is inadequately hardened or one that supports the installation of content-management modules.
this is the stupidest comment I have read all week. chromenis fucking INFESTED in IT field. literally almost everyone uses it in my class, I'm a third year student in ict-engineering. literally everyone used it in my last school too, which was also IT related. if you actually believe that you must not really see other IT people outside the linux circles
Chrome has become the baseline to support for every kind of web application out there since every major browser other than firefox and safari is a chrome reskin anyway
I'm going to need some sources for that claim or I'm calling bullshit. I have never heard anyone claim that and I have seen absolutely zero evidence suggesting that.
and neither is bad. meta is a questionable choice for privacy cooperation but even in that it makes sure no one, not even meta, can read those match keys
I believe a lot of info I got was from this video but it’s been a while so I’m not too sure: https://youtu.be/ugnOM2mzgNU
Also yea Firefox sends a lot of telemetry data and stuff, even if you disable the option in the menu. You have to go to the developer mode to remove all of it. Check "hardened Firefox". If there is an hardened Firefox, then there is a non-hardened Firefox.
And then there are all the contracts and calls to Google's server, for example for geolocation and stuff
And if you want the ultimate proof, everything is in their privacy policy https://www.mozilla.org/fr/privacy/firefox/ - just see how much data they collect, use and share, for better or for worse.
after reading the privacy site that doesn't sound too bad. or at least "tracks you private data and shares it with their business partners" bad which makes it sound like they are literally spying on you.
they do send telemetry data yes, but not your ip or anything that could be used to track against you, they do share some data while using the search function from url bar which is prettt much necessary and that seems to be only the stuff you typed.
most of it seems to just be about sponsored content where they send the amount of clicks and time when those clicks happened so advertisers know some statistics and advertisors get their royalties. firefox does suggest you content based on your browsing history but that happens locally. in no point does you browsing history go outside your computer, which is the most important part to me. they do know what was suggested, but not how it was suggested
so in conclusion, they do send some device information, information about your clicks and where those clicks happened and some other very basic telemetry with no information that could be tracked to you.
of course if one want the ultimate privacy that can be a dealbreaker. but to say that they collect your private data is quite an overstatement imo. I couldn't give a damn if my browsing is part of some anonymous statistics.
but yeah in a way you're correct, they do collect data. like almost literally every application does in the modern era
Mozilla's websites are full of trackers too, and they are largely funded by Google. How can you protect privacy when your biggest customer gains money by tracking? Seems like a clear conflict of interest.
And it’s not a bit of telemetry data, it’s literally your entire computer config, number of tabs open, duration… they claim not to log IPs, but can you really trust them? The point is you’re constantly pinging with your IP to their servers for useless reasons. They literally sell your data by sharing it to their “business partners”.
They also send the url of all files you download to Google by default. Great. That’s privacy!
yeah I can trust them with no ip logging because I live in eu and if that big of a company breaks their own rules it's going to get noted and addressed
and without the ip you just keep sending quite basic stuff anonymously. nobody is getting tracked by that. it's just pretty anoymous data which ingludes general stuff like tab count, information about your ROUGH location (ip based, not accurate), hardware, clicks, count of clicks, times page visited etc... so just basic stuff that has literally nothing to do with the actual user.
the link to your telemetry ends at the moment they don't tell the actual stuff that identifies you like your ip. please if you disagree, what part of that data don't you want to be shared because it has something to do with your privacy? it's all anonymous.
firefox is an opensource software where literally anyone can view the source code and check themselves what is actually sent. you argument all you want with the "but can youn trust them?" but literally anyone esle except some guy on youtube didn't feel like complaining about firefox
it's an opensource software, running with the expenses of a big browser. the fact that you let firefox use your anonymous telemetry for royalties is the least you can do to support browser like that. it is literally your specs, location by city, amount of clicks, where the clicks were, when it happened, and possibly some other stuff that I can't remember. all which is sent without you ip or other indications? what about those is actualy sacred?
also the sharing with third party service is only current with the current search service so you can choose yourself where you want to give your data in search engines.
and the google ad sevice only gets your ad-id which doesn't get linked to you if you don't use other google services in which case this conversation is pointless.
sorry if I missed something I'm high as fuck
But I see no reason for fearmongering or untrust. they are literally OPEN FUCKING SOURCE!
edit: and of course they are doing a lot of businnes with googe it is literally the biggest and easiest advertiser and they need money from somewhere. doesn't meen they spy on YOU and track YOUR data as your own and sell it with your info slapped on it.
they have 1100 employees to pay for and a LOT of servers for almost 15 million users. think about the costs with the mind that they also have to take profit to grow and get more customers. they cant stay completely still with growth and profits if they want to get more users and servers space. it takes a lot more resources to get as any users as it took in the firefox glory days
Everything they recently added is pure bullshit and useless stuff. Just watch the video I linked, it says everything you want to hear.
With all the data shared to their partners, I guess it's relatively easy to fingerprint you, depending on how they do it.
And cmon about the servers, I never go to their website, I only cost money because of the shit ton of data they retrieve. An update ping from time to time and an update twice a month can't possibly cost 5 million dollars.
They don't have anything to spend money on, the browser is pretty much full of features. The only thing to do is make it faster and check for security issues.
At least on Brave you can opt out of this bullshit
sorry if I missed something I’m high as fuck
Nice
firefox is an opensource software where literally anyone can view the source code and check themselves what is actually sent. you argument all you want with the “but can youn trust them?” but literally anyone esle except some guy on youtube didn’t feel like complaining about firefox
As if people actually did that. I bet serverside code isn't open source
I have had uni professors sign books to make sure people actually bought new books and not used ones (he wrote them); unfortunately for him i had access to toluene to get pen ink off; did the same to all of my peers;
Fuck those kind of professors
He threatened you to either buy a new book or he would make your uni career hell, one of my mates did it, at the last exam he sent him back 5 times, the last time he went to take the exam the coordiator said "what else have you got to ask to him; he told you everything in your course; [insert name] give me the paper" he signed the paper and sent him off; the prof. Still gave him only 60/100.
I still want to slap that piece of shit.
After that i taught other people in the uni to do that; he tried to mitigate by writing over the printed title of the book; hoping that any tampering would be evident; toluene didn't touch the toner, so it didn't work
Here in italy no one gives a quater of a fuck about that kind of shit.
Good thing is that the same can be said when after the last exams he always needs to call a tow truck since he won't have tires, not even cameras were able to stop them, and i'm quite sure other professors turn a blind eye to them since they also hate him.
just fyi:
"teach" is one of those words in English that has a different suffix for it's past-tense: it is "taught".
Eg. "They taught me to sew."
"teached" is improper.
Note: not to be confused with "taut" which is pronounced the same.
You know what I also hate? When professors take your phone while in class. I had a professor that did that back in my days of gender studies college and he saw nudes of my they/them girlfriend at the time. Mannn it was an awkward rest of the class and he didn't tell anyone, but I really showed him, ended up taking the day off next day and nailed his wife. Dude never found out or anything, turns out her wife has dated several other guys while he's busy at school teaching students. Still never confirmed whether he found out or not.
Overall, lost my train of thought, in response to your comment they do it to be sure you have the most recent information in the book, don't see an issue tbh.
The specific case here was the professor had a financial stake in new books being sold.
I do agree updated editions with new information could be important, but again when theres a financial incentive to sell new books, the obvious lean will be towards making new versions even if there is no new information.
Since the books can be required, they should be required to show proof they have substantially added to their edition or else relegate it to a minor revision (maybe adding sub-editions like 1.0, 1.1, 1.2; where you only need the first number to be current). Right now its a whole lot of, "Trust us you need this book and the only pre-owned versions are out of date".
As a side thought, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if they use the book costs to weed out those that will not allow themselves to be abused to that degree. This would leave only those who would conform to their leader/manager/teacher and are less likely to try to change the system.
Side note: to anyone looking to follow this method, please try to limit the amount of toluene you are exposed to by wearing gloves and working in a well ventilated space. It can do dirty shit to your nervous system and I've seen chemists start to experience symptoms from relatively little exposure to the fumes.
In general if you can get a respirator or at least an n95 mask if you still have them from covid(apparently that doesnt work); also make tries on an old book before going on the good one, at least if you mess up it isn't another hole punched in your wallet
A respirator with an organic vapor trap will work, but an N95 will do essentially nothing for chemical vapors besides give you a false sense of safety.
If you have nothing, do your work outside and don't work with your face directly over areas with the toluene.
My kid discovered that he can hit the "report" button on the YouTube app on the TV to skip the ads immediately. So now every ad gets reported as "inappropriate".
Tip: if you have an Android TV, you can install SmartTube as an alternative, privacy-friendly YouTube client. It has no ads and sponsorblock integration
This is why I refuse to buy a "smart" TV. My old flat screen TV works perfectly fine with a Chromecast with Google TV. I can even use the Chromecast in my projector or any other device with HDMI input to make it smarter than most TV interfaces I have tried.
I do the same, I use kodi on a CoreElec box on my 10 year old dumb TV. It works great, but my issue is it's going to be extremely difficult to replace my TV when it gets time to upgrade. (Eg, if I want to move to an OLED, or QD panel). Every new TV on the market is a smart TV. It's getting to the point that you need to buy a very large monitor, rather than a TV, to achieve the same setup.
My cheapo dumb tv died a couple of years back, was a great bit of kit for $400au that gave me 10 years. I've got a "smart" tv at the moment which isn't connected to the internet, and just serves as the display for my Shield TV.
I'd probably consider an LG commercial / signage display as my next device, some old work connections can get me one as a special purchase through their distribution channels it's just waiting out the current panel dying.
I found out this trick when I eating dinner once at my local library. Oddly, it was a kid came up and saw I was watching YT videos. Showed me the tactic, and now I rely on it lol
I also don't understand it. But now I am wondering if we would not have had those "careless" (indifferent ? ignorant ?) millions of people not blocking ads then Google and others may have started pushing anti-adblock measures years earlier, no ?
On one hand: Ads are gross noise pollution, and people are increasingly unaware of all the noise around them (or the noise they're generating) largely because they've been passively trained to "tune out" ads. Also consumerism.
On the other hand: As long as there are a significant amount of people oblivious to the possibility of adblock, corporate ad mobsters and the other worst people in the world out there will largely leave those of us blocking their ads alone. If everyone ran adblockers, we'd definitely live in a world of WEI... and probably worse. So, maybe all those people are watching ads so that I don't have to, as the YouTube thumbnails say.
If sites wanted to run ads and host them locally without tracking that would be fine. But since they're tracking users it's essential to block them for privacy and security, and if someone isn't then maybe they don't understand the level of tracking involved. We need a better name than adblocking.
The way people talk about people who don't block ads is so funny.
I understand and respect the reasons people choose to use blockers, but ads honestly just aren't that problematic for me in practice and are easy to avoid and ignore.
Ads have been known to contain drive-by malware. Even if you don't mind seeing ads (which personally I don't mind unless they're very intrusive), an adblocker is important for online safety.
There's no mention of anything like zero-days in that article. They only mention that it can target all major OSes, with no mention of cutting edge versions also being vulnerable.
Hilariously, the article directly supports my position as well:
The good news for some, at least: it likely poses a minimal threat to most people, considering the multi-million-dollar price tag and other requirements for developing a surveillance campaign using Sherlock
That's a big part of my whole point. People who don't do even a modicum of actual thought about a practical threat model for themselves love pretending that ad blocking isn't primarily just about not wanting to see ads.
If Israel or some other highly capable attacker is coming after you, then fine, you really do need ad blocking. In that case malware in ads is going to be the least of your concerns.
Attacks that cast such a wide net as to be the concern of all web users are necessarily less dangerous because exploits need to be kept secret to avoid being patched.
There's nothing wrong with taking extra precautions; I'm certainly not saying blocking ads is a bad idea. It's the apparent confusion that an informed, tech-savvy person might choose not to block ads that makes me laugh.
Credit rating also depends on credit to debt ratio. You want to keep it below 35%, so you would need a credit line of $100T or more to have a great rating.
Articles and posts like this really just exist for conservatives to shout that we need to stop federal spending and cut out "unimportant" things like Dept of Education, as described in Project 2025.
The problem is that debt is good. It enables us to pay for infrastructure projects and services. It doesn't work like a household budget...not on the scale of international economies...because money "in the bank" is money that's not in circulation.
When money is not in circulation, it's not being used to pay for goods and services....it's just...sitting there being hoarded.
You all complain about Musk hoarding a few hundred billions. Imagine if the debt were in the opposite direction and the government had $34T sitting in the bank doing nothing.
And anyone can buy Treasury debt. In fact, last year it was an AMAZING return on investment for anyone that bought into it and holds into the debt for a few years. One of the safest places anybody could put money to earn a return (behind a HYSA at FDIC insured banks).
Fully agreed, the whole "Debt bad! Deficit evil!" trope is just neoliberal propaganda against public expenditure, which translates into a weakening of the welfare state
When money is not in circulation, it’s not being used to pay for goods and services…it’s just…sitting there being hoarded.
This is why I think the velocity of money should be a key economic indicator. Money moving around and doing work is what makes an economy better for everyone. When it starts to pool in the economy it slows down and benefits only a few.
This is another thing I learned from "Making Money"
I'm not a financial expert, so someone who is please step in and correct anything that I say is wrong. I need to learn too.
It's because the government's debt is also a surplus. Government debt isn't like personal debt because the government debt is mostly through selling bonds that the government issues. Most of that debt is owned by American citizens, in one way or another, who buy those bonds. Most of that $34 trillion is money the government owes it's people, or at least the Americans who hold those bonds.
It's not really money you owe but it's money that is owed to you. Well actually the billionaire class who can actually afford to buy these bonds but hey, that's Capitalism baby.
Memes
Top
Dieses Magazin erhält keine Updates (letzte Aktivität vor 0 Tage(n)).