ah, a child, that would explain it.

well that’s one of the easiest blocks i’ve seen.

Needlessly confrontational, but you do you.

I’d be interested to hear your alternative.

Genuinely, the law system is suspect at best, in many places.

That’s a lot of absolutism for someone not specifying a defining context.

No definition of “help”, “the planet” or “diet” means it’s wide open to contra-examples.

I know how MV3 works, thanks.

That’s my bad, i genuinely didn’t consider that someone who knew what happened would frame it as ublock dragging their heels and not mention the context at all.

The point remains that from the moment it was announced people have been claiming, usually with much hyperbole, that Chrome was trying to kill adblockers,

Along with a lot of people who rightly pointed out that a largely ad based company being in charge of the specification of a system that can limit the ability for their ads to be blocked is a massive conflict of interest.

Luckily for all of us, google is known for it’s history of forgoing ad revenue and corporate interests in favour of end-user happiness…so we shouldn’t worry about it.

…

I actually find it interesting that they managed to achieve the stated goal of preventing a certain class of malware extensions while letting adblockers still work (though I know it’s not a widely shared sentiment).

It’s not a widely shared sentiment for a reason.

Mind you, I still preferred living in an MV2 world, and I still encourage people to switch to Firefox.

fair enough.

It’s better for everyone if the ecosystem is more diverse.

Agreed as a general principle, especially in the mid to long term.

But if the diversity aspect introduced to 70% of a population is actively hostile (with historical indications that future aspects will also be hostile) then dismissing concerns about it as hyperbole is face-eating leopard territory.

uBlock created an entirely different implementation of their extension to work around as much of the bullshit lockdown that MV3 implements.

Adguard (and ublock origin “lite”) work exactly as much(or little) as google thinks it can get away with right now.

MV2 VS MV3 is much more of a change than just the stuff relating to ad blockers, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that a company that makes a large proportion of their revenue through advertising was in full control of the specifications for the “new” MV.

Opinions and humour aren’t mutually exclusive.

That you personally don’t find it humourous doesn’t necessarily mean it lacks humour.

If you want to complain about the authors political opinions, do that directly.

Pretending that you don’t understand how subjective humour works instead of saying what you mean is weak of character.

Unless you genuinely didn’t know humour can be different for different people?

They came in hot, you go at it, zero problems with that from me.

All I meant is that you should go at it with actual arguments.

Even if they are objectively incorrect, responding with deflection and fallacy makes your position look weak, like you don’t have an actual point.

Utterly aside from the general content of this thread.

I know nothing of the pieces printed or their leanings, nor is it relevant for the purposes of this response.

That argument is the weakest of sauces, drizzled over a disappointing bad-faith steak.

A single article doesn’t define a whole paper (nor was that claimed).

A papers’ reputation doesn’t give them a free pass for printing something outside of their normal editorial quality control.

Argue the actual claims, this bad faith deflection bullshit is fooling no-one.

I wasnt suggesting it would be easy, in fact i think it would be rather difficult on both fronts.

My comment was more about the method by which this kind of thing was intended to be addressed.

I imagine this is a controversial opinion…but isn’t the idiomatic solution to this to either:

petition the mods to get this rule added and enforced

or

To start a community that enforces this rule and let it compete with this one.

Isn’t that the whole idea of federation?

I really enjoyed the story and style, enough to work through the ‘meh’ gameplay, though some of the puzzles were kind of interesting.

I think I’d have enjoyed it more as a book or perhaps a TV series, movie would be too short.

I see, that’s my bad, I thought this was a conversation, but it’s actually a rant.

No worries, I rescind my participation

You go off king/queen/<royal of unspecified gender>.

You’re conflating commercial competency with personal likeability.

The difference between

Steam is provably the superior platform and that’s why they are successful.

Vs

Steam is better because I like gaben.

Defending commercial competency is logically consistent.

Defending a billionaire personally is not.

Now go back and look at what was being defended.

it’s in the second link (or at least the dev’s side is)

I agree, in my mind repairability is implied by the ability to upgrade but that isn’t always the case.

These have both.

I’ve always thought of the value proposition of the framework as being it’s capacity for upgrade.

You should obviously start from a level of compute that meets your requirements, but the additional cost for the framework was always the price of the ability to change out parts later (at the very least the idea of it)

It feels like an apples to oranges comparison but with the only success criteria being the things an apple is designed for (pun intended).

If performance to price ratio was the only criteria they are interested in , the framework shouldn’t even be in the race.

• You can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.
• If someone has internalised a position as a part of themselves then an attack on that position is now a personal attack and will be treated as such. ( this is one reason why you see such visceral responses to what would normally be minor disagreements )
• Not everybody is looking for (or will even consider) a differing viewpoint, they will just ignore anything outside of their bubble because they don’t care about factual accuracy as much as they care about validation.
• Bad faith isn’t always intentional trolling, some people are just natural arseholes ( like babies aren’t trying to make your ears bleed with their crying, it’s just one of the only means of communication available to them )

missed one from before :

If anybody actually tries to make this a hard requirement (which isn’t going to happen), then you can bitch about it at that time.

You mean aside from the laws this change was specifically implemented for…the ones you mentioned…those ones ?
Is there some other example of a hard requirement you need ?

I was already bitching about it, but now i have your permission it feels extra special.