• 9 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: May 31, 2020


I would have liked to see more of an open, public discussion.

As someone else responded, sometimes it is acceptable for us as a society to take certain risks to not hold up progress. I can get on board with that here.

Like, the costs and the necessary delay of a long-term study would have probably been prohibitively high. We probably wouldn’t have any form of wireless connectivity now, if that was a strict requirement.

But basically resolving what you described in your last sentence, that wouldn’t have hurt. At least acknowledging that it’s not entirely risk-free, would have probably made conspiracy nuts disappear in an instant:
Yes, we’re risking the health and safety of all of you, but this was actually decided to be worth risking by your democratically elected leaders. We didn’t need some evil council. If this harms you, that was incompetence, not malice.

Yeah, ethics are sometimes quite weird. In some scenarios we’ll call any life lost a tragedy, in others we’ll accept a lot of deaths in the name of progress.

I also recently thought this with bikes and cars. You pretty much only need a bike helmet, because cars exist. We could’ve declared cars dangerous and prohibited them. Instead, we told those old-timers still using a bike to pad out their brains and simply hope for the best when they do suddenly encounter a car.

This isn’t really the place to have a discussion about this meme, but imma start one anyways. 🙃

I always find it bad that there’s pretty much only the two camps of conspiracy fetishists and those who just assume it’s going to be fine.

Like, there’s a legitimate logical reason why 5G is quite likely fine. Because from our observations so far, dangerous electromagnetic waves start beyond visible light (starting with ultraviolet light, so-called “ionizing” radiation), whereas 5G, much like its predecessors, is far away from visible light.
Additionally, the sun is blasting us with visible light at an intensity we couldn’t reproduce, if we wanted to, so it’s not either like the increased intensity is logical to cause problems.
But most people who accept it to probably be fine, have likely not thought this through nor asked someone about it. And you can’t really just ask about it without possibly being thought of as believing in a conspiracy.

At the same time, there is legitimate reasons to be concerned. We haven’t done long-term studies to see if e.g. 5G waves make your arm fall off after 20 years of exposure.
There’s no logical reason for it to do that, but exposing billions of people 24/7 before being absolutely sure, that’s a decision which can legitimately be challenged. And we have done some stupid shit in the past, like X-raying people to see whether their shoe fits them. So, you don’t even need there to be a conspiracy for a certain skepticism to be in order.

I have an even simpler example of this: Clickbait headlines.

A few weeks ago, I was discussing with someone who had shared a screenshot of a headline which basically read “Scientists find more than X hours free time in a day don’t make you happier”.

And this person was angry, because to them, it sounded like these scientists were advising to become a workaholic, give up all hobbies etc… Which I’m pretty sure, the news agency intended for it to sound like that, as that will garner more anger and therefore more attention.

And they even wrote “see the future”, not just “predict the future”, so I’m not sure it would even be possible to change it at all…

That Zelensky news story is how I heard it here, too, but I don’t see how that should have convinced us other than maybe showing that other wealthy nations are offering help, so we should be helping, too.

In regards to France, the way I heard it, is that they had to shut down some reactors for maintenance, but then also had to have the remaining reactors operate at low capacity, since they would have otherwise overheated the little water that was still running through the rivers.

I don’t know what would be an authorative news source on this, mine is this German article: https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Krisenstab-eingesetzt-Atomdesaster-in-Frankreich-nimmt-seinen-Lauf-7205304.html
That is one of the most renown tech news agencies in Germany, so I’m willing to believe it.

Well, personally I’d rather throw the world economy under a bus than sit back and relax as some psychopath has millions of innocent people slaughtered.

This may not be rational by some definition, this may not be behaviour even I would expect from a nation. But I don’t need to fucking be told that the schoolyard bully peer-pressured us into doing this when I’m allowed to vote and would have preferred even stronger sanctions.

I mean, we don’t know he’s wearing pants.

So, you believe we’re not stupid enough to crash our economy on our own, but are stupid enough to let the US convince us?

I mean, this is a humor community, I don’t think anyone is necessarily trying to make a rational argument here.
In particular, the audience here are techies, so we’re usually familiar enough no matter the design, and we probably view enough webpages per day to get bored by the same designs over and over.

But to make a rational argument anyways, user experience isn’t just how easily a user can use a webpage. Experiencing beauty or creativity also adds to the experience.
And sometimes a novel design may be more intuitive or usable than repeating the same thing indefinitely. For example, those icon+text items never felt particularly read-worthy on any webpage.

You mean after Russia attacked Ukraine? Again, I certainly do not feel like we needed instigation from the US for that.

How is the USA involved in this?

There was a massive draught which killed the nuclear plants in France, causing them to buy power from Germany at extremely high prices and then at the same time, much less natural gas was being delivered from Russia, and the Russian war on Ukraine caused inflation. And all of that after two years of pandemic now means that many low income families can’t afford the rising energy prices.

Obviously, there’s many more factors involved, but I don’t see the USA in this.

Right, so here’s what I believe to be facts, without having sources to prove every little detail:

Firefox’s main source of income is the default search engine deal with Google. Yes, they practically advertise Google Search by doing this, but they do not submit more data to Google than google.com itself would like to submit. If you change your default search engine, you’re completely unaffected.

Mozilla also does some advertising, but they are building their own (privacy-friendly) advertising network for that. They are not collaborating with Google for that.

The use of Google Analytics is for telemetry only, so they can improve their software with anonymized data.

This isn’t a great situation. Whenever they add privacy protections to Firefox, they’re biting the hand that feeds them + they’re competing with that hand + they need webpage owners to like them, too, since they have their own rendering engine.

But when it’s a decision about a smaller implementation detail, those parties won’t notice Mozilla’s decision and then Mozilla will gladly opt for the most privacy/user-friendly option.

If it is a larger decision, like good ad blocking, then they will often not make it the default, but give users the option to install an extension or change a setting. This is also especially driven by the Tor Browser devs, who need these capabilities and if they’re not contained in Firefox, they need to maintain their own patches on top of Firefox.

So, with Firefox, we have a finance model that requires the user to configure a few things to get the most privacy-friendly option possible.

Vivaldi, Brave et al have a different model. They need significantly less money, because they’re not building their own engine. More than 99% of their code base is taken verbatim from Chromium/Blink. Those smaller implementation details were all decided on by Google.
And then they add content blockers on top to try to fix that.

This finance model generally allows them to be more privacy-friendly out of the box. But with 15 minutes of customizing Firefox, you get a privacy-friendly browser like no Chromium-based browser will ever be.

@lienrag@mastodon.tedomum.net Yeah, and it’s not proof of a problem with the webpage either.

Google Analytics is bad on basically any webpage that uses it, because by default, it will share data with Google. But Mozilla has a deal with Google to block that: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14

And you can use Google Analytics for just basic telemetry, which is not privacy invasive at all. You can do more, but this screenshot doesn’t actually provide evidence of that. And ad tracking will usually happen via ad domains, e.g. doubleclick.net.

I’m definitely on board with not just believing everything at face value, but then we need actual proof. Mozilla is legally a nonprofit with express claim of wanting to protect privacy.
Any actual evidence of them breaking with that, would set the internet ablaze. Any tech journalist would want that news story published. Their own employees would become whistleblowers sooner rather than later, because they are aware of the public image.

Therefore, if you don’t have complete evidence, I think, it’s sane to assume that Mozilla are not being evil until you do find actual evidence.
They are not a traditional company, where I have made that same observation that Google Analytics on the webpage == garbage. @Zerush@lemmy.ml

Uptick in Trolls?
Hi, I've noticed an increased number of trolls/asshats in recent days, who will argue in bad faith or even spread misinformation to an extent that cannot possibly happen by accident. I don't know if that's a rule violation, but they make this community worse. So, can we ban those? Or do we already ban those, and I should just report them? I'd rather not have this webpage turn into Reddit, 4Chan, whatever. In any case, I would like to express my support of moderators making decisions by intuition, rather than always limiting themselves to the rules. Nazis love to discuss rules. And a rule-adhering Nazi is still a Nazi, not part of this community. Sure, sometimes someone will get banned unfairly and there won't be a rule to point them towards. But I'm willing to throw those people under the bus (even if it were to hit me), to protect this community from Nazis+trolls. Finally, thanks mods for the work you do already do. <3

Just in general, 5 days of work for 2 days of living, doesn’t seem like a great deal.

Some people are kind of already living that romance with the Gemini protocol. So, that’s separate from the whole HTTP/HTML web and you need a Gemini browser to access it. The markup language is rather similar to Markdown, so the fanciest tech you have available, are images and ASCII art. Which is pretty hostile to advertising.

As far as I could tell, if you enjoy reading blog posts, this is actually quite a cozy little corner of the internet.

Again, I don’t know where you get the information from that Mozilla makes money off of surveillance. For many years now, they’ve had the problem that they’re overly reliant on Google, but from the search engine deal, not advertisements. See, for example, this article: https://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-back-its-firefoxs-default-search-engine-again-after-mozilla-ends-yahoo-deal/

They have tried to gain a foothold in advertising to reduce that dependence on Google, but that was always privacy-friendly advertising.

Firefox Sync is end-to-end-encrypted, too. See, for example:

They are generally able to recover sync data, because it’s supposed to be synced to one or more Firefox installations (it’s specifically not a backup service). When you request a password reset, they essentially just wipe what they have on their servers and then re-upload the data from your Firefox installations, encrypted with your new password.

dav1d is a decoder for the AV1 video codec. It's optimized for performance to achieve reasonable decoding speed even without hardware decoding support (which is still generally lacking for AV1).

Screenshot is from this game: https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/js/slant.html The red line actually marks an error (you're not supposed to form loops), so there's probably some really deep meaning to this.