Indie the Grate replied with this 2 years ago, 44 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,275,020
@1,275,017 (C)
Are you upset because Google will be making it more difficult for you to freeload content through the use of ad blocking addons, praytell?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,275,032
@previous (Indie the Grate)
They should find a way to do that without using my browser to track me across the web, and then I'll switch back to chrome. I gave up a few features I'd like to see back.
If Firefox is the only browser that respects privacy, Firefox I'll use.
Indie the Grate replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,062
@previous (G)
If you use a company's services whilst using shady "open source" software that literally breaks vital Web functionality in order to nefariously impede their ability to deliver targeted advertising to you, you are a thief. It's as simple as that. Thanks.
I can see it is that simple for you, I disagree regardless. If he is a thief, then you glorify thievery by mislabeling it so badly. How much time has been saved by refusing to allow adds into our lives? Countless.
Indie the Grate replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,080
@previous (G)
According to the terms of service that you agree to whenever you consume content provided by YouTube, YouTube does, in fact, own the time that you would have spent watching the advertisements that they would have delivered to your device if you hadn't been using software that deliberately breaks their website. It's just how the world works, and you need to start accepting that. Thanks.
It would be amazing if it actually said that but I'm sure you are just making absurd interpretations of it. But if it did, it would still be fucked up and I'd still say that thieves who steal their own freedom or "time" are heros, matt, they are heros
Indie the Grate replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,085
@previous (G)
The kind of moochers and layabouts whom use sketchy hacking software like "Firefox" and "Adblocker Origin Plus" to steal content from websites are not hardworking people. Thanks, thanks. Thanx.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,101
@1,275,032 (C) > I gave up a few features I'd like to see back.
Name each and every one of them.
Also, only tools use Firefox. I stopped using it ever since they started including adware and "analytics" spyware that's turned on by default. Or maybe the last straw for me was them making it damn near impossible to turn off auto updating. I will update on my own schedule. That's my decision and not mozilla's. Nagging me constantly to restart the browser is not giving me a "choice". ANyway, I don't remember what actually caused me to switch. They've been increasingly disrespectful to their users for so long I can't remember.
Switch to Librewolf. It's just a re-compiled firefox with all the crap I mentioned above disabled by default, along with generally sane privacy respecting defaults throughout. It's basically what firefox used to be before they sold out and became evil.
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,103
@1,275,045 (E)
Another good add-on for youtube is SponsorBlock. ublock seems to work perfectly well for blocking youtube's ads, but SponsorBlock will block the in-video sponsorship ads (in addition to the "subscribe and like" spam, if you configure it to) that the uploader puts in the video itself.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,110
@1,275,101 (J)
Don't be so literal, by "using Firefox" I meant a browser with the Gecko engine underneath.
My browser is custom built on top of Gecko, with a UI that meets my needs. I have not named it anything other than "browser".
Did you bother to audit the LibreWolf code? Often one of the maintainers will "accidentally" leave a vulnerability open, with the commit coming from a Virginia IP.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 41 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,113
@previous (C)
So by custom built are you claiming you are compiling it yourself? The GUI is something you wrote from scratch? Or starting from a base of what? How frequently do you pull upstream updates for Gecko? Is this part of your paid work or are you independently wealthy and work on this for free as full time unpaid job?
> Did you bother to audit the LibreWolf code?
Have you audited the 45 million lines of code in Gecko? Is your OS open source? Have you audited that? Which microprocessor are you using? Did you reverse engineer and audit the closed source version of Minux that was revealed to be running in hypervisor mode on every x86 processor released in the past 10+ years?
How secure is your power grid? Are you taking measures to ensure spying can't be done through recent developments with machine learning on real time power grid data?
Surely you or anyone in your house doesn't own a cell phone, right? Or did you already physically disconnect the microphone, camera(s), gyroscopes, touchscreen and all other components just leaving a bare, disconnected circuit board?
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,114
@1,275,110 (C) > Often one of the maintainers will "accidentally" leave a vulnerability open, with the commit coming from a Virginia IP.
In all seriousness, on the off chance that you're serious, tell us more. Link to some of these commits or talk elsewhere of this happening.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,116
@1,275,054 (Indie the Grate) > Why do you want the companies that deliver content and services to literally billions of people to go bankrupt?
You really believe that's what will happen if 1% of users with enough brain cells to realise they don't have to buy into Google's corporate bullshit don't watch a few ads? Lol. Idiot.
> Just buy YouTube Premium.
Lol, have fun pouring your time and money into a black hole.
> So by custom built are you claiming you are compiling it yourself? The GUI is something you wrote from scratch? Or starting from a base of what? How frequently do you pull upstream updates for Gecko? Is this part of your paid work or are you independently wealthy and work on this for free as full time unpaid job?
Yes, the GUI was written from scratch. My package manager keeps up to date with Gecko, and the makefile automatically runs and replaces the binary.
This is not something I'm paid to do. > > >Did you bother to audit the LibreWolf code? > Have you audited the 45 million lines of code in Gecko?
I have an LLM read through the changelog and flag anything that looks malicious. This triggers a process that requires me to manually approve the upgrade.
> Is your OS open source?
Only what the GPL requires I share. Everything else is personal, and stays with me. If my UI is public, an attacker could use that info to feed me a familiar interface that I take for granted as authentic.
> Which microprocessor are you using?
My actual chip isn't something you'd be familiar with, but that's unimportant because everything is virtualized on top and I can run any x86 (incl. 64bit) binaries.
> Did you reverse engineer and audit the closed source version of Minux that was revealed to be running in hypervisor mode on every x86 processor released in the past 10+ years?
I have not, because I am only using virtualization for that. My chip is not vulnerable to that particular issue.
> > How secure is your power grid?
Someone in the area was portscanning anything hooked up to our broadband-over-powerline WAN. I rarely use that network because the fiber line in my residence has a higher throughput.
> Are you taking measures to ensure spying can't be done through recent developments with machine learning on real time power grid data?
Yes, multiple devices on the same circuit have fluctuating power use. Isolating my computer isn't possible unless you could get right next to exact plug used. In that scenario, I would have bigger problems.
> Surely you or anyone in your house doesn't own a cell phone, right?
Only a similarly secured device used on trusted WiFi.
> Or did you already physically disconnect the microphone, camera(s), gyroscopes, touchscreen and all other components just leaving a bare, disconnected circuit board?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 17 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,123
@1,275,119 (C) > My actual chip isn't something you'd be familiar with, but that's unimportant because everything is virtualized on top and I can run any x86 (incl. 64bit) binaries.
It is something I'd be familiar with. What is the chip?
> I have an LLM read through the changelog and flag anything that looks malicious. This triggers a process that requires me to manually approve the upgrade.
How did you train it? On what data? This doesn't sound like a very good audit at all.
> I have not, because I am only using virtualization for that. My chip is not vulnerable to that particular issue.
Which chip?
> Only what the GPL requires I share. Everything else is personal, and stays with me. If my UI is public, an attacker could use that info to feed me a familiar interface that I take for granted as authentic.
Did you write this OS from scratch? Or are you basing it on something else? What? Have you audited every line?
> Someone in the area was portscanning anything hooked up to our broadband-over-powerline WAN. I rarely use that network because the fiber line in my residence has a higher throughput.
Not talking about internet over the powerline. Talking about the biometrics that can be inferred simply by being connected to the powergrid regardless of where your internet is from.
> Yes, multiple devices on the same circuit have fluctuating power use. Isolating my computer isn't possible unless you could get right next to exact plug used. In that scenario, I would have bigger problems.
Sounds like you need to brush up on what's in the machine learning literature then as your knowledge on this topic seems a bit dated.
> Goes without saying.
Good.
Is your home in itself in a faraday cage? How are you controlling EM leaks?
Looking forward to you posting those links about the commits you're talking about re: librewolf. Thanks.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,275,127
> Like other new browser startups, such as SigmaOS, Arc is designed to be an "operating system for the web", and integrates standard browsing with Arc's own applications through the use of a sidebar.
Hahaha. Oh, wait they're serious? This isn't a joke?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,275,208
@previous (M)
Among the options to remove an anti-competitive force, that's the most hands-off approach I can think of. Can you think of another more hands-off approach? Aside from throwing our hands up, doing nothing, and saying we don't care about competition, and hence capitalism at all?
Anonymous M replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,275,212
@previous (J)
I think stronger antitrust law is more likely than free market capitalism. I'd rather the government provide a stronger version of that service if they're going to continue screwing around with regulation of the markets. Asking for stronger antitrust law isn't throwing my hands up and saying there's nothing we can do.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,275,215
@previous (M)
The problem with breaking up companies is that it's not always that effective and there's too much subjectivity involved in determining when and which companies should be broken up. Better to let the companies themselves decide, and to guide their hand through their finances, which is the only thing they reliably respond to.
Anonymous M replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,275,218
@previous (J)
As noted in the RMS post you linked, you'll have that same problem in determining whether a company has really broken itself up or is doing it for show to avoid the tax. If you can determine a ruleset for this new tax you don't even need it, just mandate they must break up if they're too big, anti-competitive or not. It's exactly as just as the tax.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,275,285
@previous (M)
It's been a while since I read the RMS post, so I don't remember what he said exactly. I'm just going off what I think and using his idea as the main source of inspiration.
> As noted in the RMS post you linked, you'll have that same problem in determining whether a company has really broken itself up or is doing it for show to avoid the tax.
Is it any different than the problems that come up when the government steps in to break up a company? How do we really know they've broken up and when they've just saying "okay, okay, we're broken up! ignore the fact that we still overwhelmingly do business with our spin-off sister business, we just can't find any other company offering the services we need to operate" Same thing can happen no matter the case. Maybe the severance can be better done when the government oversees it. If that's even true, then we could just require that the government oversee the breakup if a company wants to legally count itself as two for tax purposes.
Personally, I think the false breakup problem, no matter the situation, ought to just be settled in court, preferably by a jury trial, with a potential verdict being the revocation of the company's corporate charter and complete dissolution.
It's kind of like, when am I really threatening you? If I suggested your family would suffer consequences if you don't do a certain action, have I really threatened you or am I just suggesting a possibility that could happen? It's subjective! Except, anyone who wants to steer clear of the criminal justice system will stay out of that territory all together. That same pressure needs to be applied to companies. In general, not just with this.
> If you can determine a ruleset for this new tax you don't even need it, just mandate they must break up if they're too big, anti-competitive or not. It's exactly as just as the tax.
It wouldn't be hard to come up with the ruleset at all. Start gradually, with only the slightest changes to existing tax codes and keep ramping up until we the public see the desired results.
How could this be any worse than taking immediate, drastic, possibly irreversible action?
And anyway, I do think there are situations where extremely large companies can provide benefits and be a source of inventiveness that may not come about from smaller corporations (Bell labs, perhaps). Also, some enterprises are simply incredibly costly. Like all of the microprocessor industry. I think it's good to allow these to exist, provided they can balance the harm they cause in some way. Taxes are one way.
Didn't mean for this post to become so long. But what can you do
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,275,288
As if I didn't write enough already lol, I want to add that I think the subjectiveness of when to break up a company itself is of a more sinister kind and harder to pin-point than if a company has truly broken up. I think the latter problem is much easier to recognise and deal with. But further, it's easier to steer clear of fraudulently pretending to break up, than being anti-competitive due to its inherently more severe subjectivity.