chienandalou
But if someone hands me apples for free, they really can't force me to study the ads on the wrapping paper, can they? I have never signed anywhere that I agree to this 'deal'. That's not how capitalism works as far as I understand it.
And their terms aren't legally enforceable.
Where I live adblockers are legal. When I access YT with Firefox and uBlock Origin it's legal for me to filter YTs datastream how I want to.
If this was a capitalistic transaction of goods, I would have to login to use their service. I would have to agree to some kind of legally binding contract. I would first have to pay, and could then use their product or service. But all that isn't necessary to watch videos on YT.
There is no legally binding 'deal' between YT and me.
Apart from that, nice game, well done!
I'm not sure it's nuts to build the compiler to 'fix' this, though. Customizing and building a tool really isn't such a big deal when you think about it.
I use this method to build a zig compiler to work with, and when I build a release build of my zig-project I switch to the official compiler and fix the handful 'unused variable' errors. Works fine for me.
As a meditator myself I think it would be helpful if this were more well-known.
If you search for her name, you'll find more information and studies. Here's an interview and article:
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/trauma-meditation/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-...
How about surveys or well, common sense?
I'm a tech oriented person who cares about privacy. I want software that is lightweight, configurable, with sensible defaults. For any features besides the basic functionality (in this case: browsing the web), I don't want to opt-out, I want to opt-in.
Privacy oriented means for me that the software I use doesn't send one bit of data that isn't necessary for its basic functionality. I use a "dumb phone" because of this. I never understood how anybody can think telemetry and privacy can co-exist.
I want a Firefox without Pocket, Send, Screenshot Tools, Sync, Clickz, any cloud based service. I only want a fast, lightweight browser that doesn't send any unnecessary data anywhere without me explicitly configuring it. That's a sensible default for me, really. Software used to be like that.
I'd also like to configure when my software looks for updates. My Linux distro let's me do that.
And it would be awesome if all other functionality (like Send/Sync/Pocket, etc.) is available via optional plugins, or in another "full-featured" version of Firefox. The deluxe edition or whatever.
I believe I'm not alone with these ideas about software. In discussions about Firefox these things always come up. There are github projects [1,2] with 1600 and 1200 stars about hardening Firefox. People care about privacy. It's not hard to find this part of the userbase.
The idea that you can't create software for your users without telemetry, is what leads Mozilla to disregard their privacy oriented users in the first place. It's depressing.
And even if I allowed telemetry on my system Mozilla wouldn't learn anything about what I wrote here. It's useless.
1: https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js/ 2: https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js
I think it's absolutely not reasonable to put climate scientists and their predictions into the same line as the mayans or nostradamus.
> Could we see a dramatic population crash? Absolutely. Population crashes of various species in various places are a known phenomenon. That could happen.
So, a population crash could happen. A lot of the comments here sound as if the people are saying "End of the world? Pffft. Total hysteria. Ultimately a few billion people will die and then human life will adapt. Everything's fine!"
I mean, take a minute and picture the suffering of billions of humans because of famine, resource wars, migration, deaths. Picture yourself and your loved ones into this.
It may not be the literal "end of the world", but don't you (and the others of the "it's-fine"-faction here) think that this is bad enough to take climate change serious and try to lessen all of that?
> And if you voice skepticism, you are advised you are a fool who just doesn't get it.
Are you sure that you do "get it" though?
https://posteo.de/en https://posteo.de/en/site/transparency_report
No, you're right. But I'd say that we implicitly value the privacy of the voting booth as a tool to guarantee a free election.
Thanks for thinking about this. :)
Fundamentalists don't care for statistics and they usually aren't very open to new ideas. Besides if they would have lists of people watching gay porn, they'd probably have a minority anyway.
> If you really want to make revealing someone's sexual preferences his and his alone decision, you'd have to reduce human interactions to text-only chat.
Of course not. Gay people in countries where they are oppressed have to hide their sexual orientation and they succeed with that. And in more open societies people decide for themselves whether they want to 'come out' to others or not. Nobody has the right to take that decision from them.
If this decision is taken away from them, it may destroy their life. And if that happens because their browsers didn't guard their privacy, the technology sucks.
> We give up a lot of privacy to form a society.
No, our society is based on the individuals' privacy. That is why we vote in secrecy and why we value a persons' liberty.
Privacy doesn't mean that everything I do is a secret. It means that I have the right to choose what I want to be a secret and what not. And I should be able to count on that, since it's a human right.
Take a look at what happens in reality. People are killed all over the world for their beliefs, their political opinions, their sexual orientation. Peoples lifes depend on their privacy. It that is taken away from them, that is totalitarianism.
If you take the aspect of watching gay porn alone: people will lose their jobs over this if their boss is conservative or they work for a conservative institution. People will lose their families or be beaten up or killed for that in fundamentalist societies or regions. Look at russia, the middle east, african countries.
And even if sexual orientation would be no problem at all in our society, perhaps in five or ten years from now that may change. All over europe right-wing political movements are rising and in the USA, well...
So, it's great that you have no problem. And yes, people should be more relaxed about watching porn. But in reality they aren't, and the decision whether someone wants other people to know about his sexual preferences or orientation has to be his and his alone.
Privacy is a human right and it's _important_. Technology should aid people in every way possible to guard their privacy, their dignity and their personal choices. To hold this as a value is not going against the progress of mankind. In fact, it's relatively easy to change technology and there is no reason at all not to do it.
e: english grammar