pjhenry1216

You realize you are also being abusive with your terminology and spreading of really poor stereotypes? You’ve also been condescending. You also tried to say explicitly something was only about you while trying to use that to describe literally other people? You also then continued to say your definition is yours alone but then tried to use it as a way to convey meaning to a general audience?

Abusive language isn’t necessarily poor communication. There is nothing ironic there. It doesn’t fit the definition of the word at all.

You’ve been both offensive and poor at communicating though.

If I need to say it, yes, I am, and you’re a shitty person for even asking.

I’m done. And you’re terrible and should be ashamed.

This has been brought up before (not here, just in general). The short answer is they heavily customized the analytics so it’s not as ‘bad’ out of the box. You can read more about it below.

You can probably ask them directly if you’d want more of an answer. They don’t seem to be trying to hide anything.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122305#c8

Edit: also, as far as I know, Firefox actively should be blocking Google Analytics, unless they changed it (which is possible). About four years ago, Firefox started blocking Google Analytics by default.

feel free to identify yourself

Fuck that. No one should have to share their anything even remotely shared to their mental health for some sort of odd gatekeeping purposes.

I gave my opinion. You are a terrible communicator and using a condition in a way that is offensive and then trying to force people to put themselves when they may not want to. So fuck that even more. That’s shameful behavior. If you want to be offensive and communicate poorly, so be it. That’s my opinion. And so be it. If you can justify forcing people to do things and if you can justify using derogatory statements to describe other people, which you literally did, that’s on you. We’re done here.

You literally just defeated your own argument. You just made the claim its your own personal definition and therefore would need to be described every single time you use it otherwise you would have a failure of communication.

Autism is different for everyone and that’s why it’s terrible to use it to describe the details of something.

And you aren’t describing your own experience. You are describing a government system. If you are admitting it’s extremely defined and only works in your head and not whoever you’re talking to, you will have a failure to communicate.

Edit: actually, that folks disagreed with you enough to comment is more a sign of that failure than any explanation I can provide. And you still provided it as a way to describe other autistics despite claiming otherwise.

This is a very poor understanding of autism. You’ve taken such a small sliver that this comparison is going to not only offend a lot of people but also confuse a lot of people. The given properties you’re invoking are such a small subset of autism and not even that widespread and hell, it ignores the core reasoning behind some. Brutal honesty is often tied with inability to be empathetic. You’re doing yourself a disservice using autism as your “model” here.

Looking into it, I can see some issues with the idea (I don’t understand how it wouldn’t fall pretty to the tragedy of the commons), plus I definitely don’t think Sanders would fit into there. I don’t see any of his proclaimed positions fitting into any definition of left-libertarian. Plus I don’t see how left-libertarian wouldn’t fall prey to the same problem we have with capitalism now, despite being an anti-capitalist notion. It’s strong sense of individual ownership of anything other than natural resources seems at odds with a lot of other socialist concepts. I will caveat all of this with saying I have a very limited understanding of left-libertarianism, but just reading any given definition just seems to give rise to very clear contradictions. I feel like either it is problematic or no one is really sharing good definitions of it.

Libertarian cannot work without socialism essentially. You cannot have a free market where the worker doesn’t own the means of production. Power will always pool to select individuals and those who have collected power have shown no remotely reliable track record to serve humanity’s best interest over their own. In fact, it’s regularly shown the exact opposite. Libertarianism is just an excuse to act against the good of society for your own benefit and fuck anyone you step on along the way. I’ve never heard a defense of libertarianism that is actually good for society. It’s basically just dressing up the belief you can’t be forced to do good, so you can’t get in trouble if you do bad.

Generally it’s more about the interaction. If the user views it as interacting with the viewport, it tends to be inverted. If the user views the interaction as interacting with the scroll bar, it’s “natural”. Scroll wheel is the only odd one out. However it was introduced prior to mousepads supporting gestures. So it basically started as an extension of the scroll bar interaction, but as mousepads introduced the concept of interacting with the viewport, scroll wheels were given the option to respond either way based on user preference.

Isn’t that almost what they suggested except starting at a different size and doing a binary search basically? You’re just starting the binary search after the first step of cutting into 5 lengths instead of 2.

She-Ra was a pretty awesome show.

I mean, there’s a difference between targeted ads which rely on a lot more data versus sponsored content which honestly, I didn’t even know what based on preferences. It is fairly hodgepodge and I figured everyone saw the same thing. It never really interested me so I turned it off.

It’s light on details as to how much preferences really play into those sponsored articles. Which you can turn off.

But targeted ads that are worth money require a lot more of a model. Advertisers won’t pay for potshot ads if they can get better targeting elsewhere. Advertising simply isn’t a good model.

You were agreeing with someone that said it led them to the opposite conclusion of the point the author wanted to make. That would require you to ignore those points or at the very least admit privacy isn’t important.

When you said “yup” to a claim, it means you agree with the claim. You didn’t simply only say you disliked the author’s writing style and felt their focus wasn’t properly targeted on the correct points.

You let me know when you find a system that analyzes your data locally and chooses an ad to show without letting anyone know anything. Even just delivering the ad is violating a level of privacy because they know it targets you at the very least. But beyond that, targeted ads require statistics to build to know how to target. You need data to build a model. You can’t build that without sharing.

You can’t respect privacy by violating it. Just because you’re ok with the amount of violation doesn’t make it ok.

I’m fine with blocking things on someone else’s site. I’m not ok with injecting things on someone else’s site.

Given what I had said about it, the interpretation made sense. I already apologized. There’s no need to correct me after the author already did. It adds nothing but trying to be condescending.

Sorry, I thought you were saying it’s based on Firefox. Just realized it was an attempt at the Wendy’s meme.

My bad. Not sure why I thought that. Still. Firefox is still a better alternative in my opinion.

Just ignore everything I said here. I misinterpreted stuff. My bad.

But the data collection sounds like it’s counter to its supposed goals. Multiple campaigns have been discussed that just make it believe they don’t actually care about privacy considering all the ways they keep trying to do stuff is counter to that. Why stay? Tor Browser is available. Hell, Firefox itself is already able to take you pretty far and extensions can do the rest.

Why make the sacrifice of your personal data? Like, how many attempts at collecting personal data do you need to have occur before you realize it’s always been their goal?

I mean, regardless of whether it sounds like afterthoughts, it kind of sounds like the ulterior motive for Brave is entirely counter to its purported intent. Why ignore it just because of something unrelated? Sounds like the exact same issue people complain about the author.