How is the worlds biggest ad distributor also the worlds biggest browser maker without it being an anti-trust violation?
How is the worlds biggest ad distributor also the worlds biggest browser maker without it being an anti-trust violation?
They've had so many opportunities to advertise a competitor to migrate to, but instead they keep paying this guy to insult him.
What was /r/reclassified?
The poes law on Musk tweet screenshots is through the roof. I have absolutely no idea if this is real.
MySQL: you have an error near here.
Me: What's the error?
MySQL: It's near here.
Me: You're not going to tell me what the error is? Okay, near where? Here?
MySQL: warmer... warmer...
So is lemmy just geriatric millennials reliving their reddit heyday?
This is isn't conservationism though. They're not trying to maintain the status quo. They're trying to go backwards.
Is he really an idiot? He's making plenty of money, and demonstrating that even the people who hate his company the most cannot stop putting money in it's pockets.
Left wing politics are more popular in the real world than they are in real world governments. The thing is that extremely online youth have absolutely no idea of just how far left they are.
Anyway to get res working with it?
What do you mean, no karma system? There is a karma system.
I don't understand. Isn't someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff, put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?
I don't really understand how that's possible. The browser gets a token from the third party, and passes that token to the server to "prove" it's running the DRM. The server then passes code back to the browser. At that point, why can't the browser just cut out the DOM elements which are ads?
I don't understand how code I write on hardware I run locally can ever have it's hands tied like this.
Can you still get to it via twitter.com?
Their ideology is to not want free and fair elections.
Come on, they're the World Series champions.
Tactful.
Why can't my modded client just give it that signature?
On code I write on hardware I run locally, how is it ever possible to not be able to remove an element from the UI?
A private key to do what?
I only have the most cursory understanding of what Widevine is, but a quick Google reveals github projects claiming to spoof it.
Where I fail to understand is this. Whatever authentication the open source browser I modify needs to do, I can let it keep doing, because at some point it has to provide my browser C++ code with a clear text DOM before it renders it to an image to be displayed by my window manager. I can write that browser to simply remove DOM elements it deems to be ads - just like ublock does - before it renders it graphically.
The only way around this would be to turn browsers in to a completely dumb terminal that accepts an octet stream of pixel data so it can display bitmaps, which is completely unfeasible (every webserver would become a graphics card for each of it's users), and even if it did that, a simple neural net would identify the ads and remove them.
What am I missing?
Present. My oldest account just had it's 13th cake day.
To make it harder, even if not impossible, for the average user to ad block them.
Are you asking because you're not sure of the answer, or because you are, and you know that web integrity will require a pre-compiled closed source binary to browse the web?
There's similarities, but it's a little more empty, and it's a little too reposty from other sites still. reddit then felt a bit more like the place, this isn't that yet.
Well as someone who has never once visited the US I am shocked.
instance blocking
What's that?
politics is not geometry ok?
Claiming that there is nothing between two points is certainly geometry.
Also calm down.
I have invited you multiple times to tell me what you think. It's not my job to help you find your tongue. Speak or don't.
Do you have a crush on me? Because if so, I'm not interested. Otherwise there's no reason for you to still be talking to me.
I think that's about as many invitations to say something of substances I'm going to watch you reject before I decide you have nothing of substance to say at all.
I still don't see why my open source browser can't just lie when it's sending a description of itself to the third party. The only way I could see it working is if that description needs to be encrypted by a key that's compiled in to a closed source browser, and then websites only accept requests from a few closed source browsers.
Is that what you're saying? That unless I have one of a couple accepted clients which are proprietary and closed source, websites just won't work?
Okay, thanks.
"Oh my god, a premise, I just have to accept it!" -- your imaginary version of me.
If you disagree with nothing I'm saying, what was you were hoping you'd added to the conversation?
How is asking you what you think putting words in your mouth? If there's some point you want to make, just make it. If there's some point you have made you think I have wrong, just clarify it.
Left of what? This is the extraordinarily simple concept you're not understanding. Whatever left is it has to be left of something. What's referred to as progressivism in the US is mostly to the left of the political establishment, and media. It's center/center-left compared to the population (depending on how you define progressivism).
If you're just using your own personal desires as your calibration point, then good for you, nobody else should or does care though.
So what you're saying is that it depends? Yeah, I agree. And we both therefore disagree "States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion". We also therefore agree it's fine for the government to have some control over your body.
What is you think we disagree on, and why?
Silly me, not trying to sound dumb. Guess you got me.
I've never killed anyone, and I almost certainly never will. Should we make it law to say I can, just because we're sure I won't?
You're shitting on the very concept of a thought experiment and of a hypothetical. What you're doing is like saying "The law should say you should be able to murder whoever you like so long as the sky is green, because the sky is never green". This is a tactic to avoid addressing the issue. Namely, even if you don't think something is going to happen, why would you allow it, if it absolutely musn't?
They say it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, but if you absolutely refuse to entertain it for strategic reasons, change the date. A healthy fetus, a few days passed due date, maybe no more than week from labour, could easily be induced, mother decides "Actually nah", takes a bunch of pills to kill it - you good with that?
I'm not sure you can have any kind of spectrum that doesn't have a middle.
These people cannot control themselves. They're protesting a company by making them money.