This is nonsense. Your argument is that you’re a pirate if one corporation with no relation to the content fails to pay a corporation which distributes but does not own the content. If you watch an ad then the advertising company refuses to pay you do not suddenly become a pirate.
If a struggling McDonald’s franchise fails to pay some franchisee fee that does not mean you pirated your big mac.
You’re being downvotes because it’s irrelevant and you’re claiming a feature that also exists in Firefox is the reason your preferred browser is better. It makes no sense.
There was an experiment once where it was determined that a frog with it’s brain removed wouldn’t jump out of slowly heated water but would reflexively jump if placed into already hot water, leading to a myth that a frog won’t leave boiling water if heated gradually enough.
Idioms around frog boiling generally means to make changes slowly and gradually enough that there is minimal reaction from affected parties.
I’m not sure I follow that analogy, if you get a ride to a hospital you don’t expect it to lock off all other destinations. What happens in the hospital is irrelevant.
From reading the article, this is more like if you walk into a hotel and they burn down your house so you have no choice but to stay. I suppose in theory you could argue in very bad faith that this is a problem with the house since it’s the house that burned, but in reality the problem is the fact they’re the ones who started the fire.
Ads. Specifically, a popup served by the OS about chrome and switching to bing or edge or something like that. I didn’t even use chrome, just having it installed was enough for them. Any ads baked into the OS is unacceptable, but that’s just so far over the line that I find it insane anyone still uses Windows at all.
I contacted support to complain and their “solution” was to reinstall the OS, so I installed a better one instead.
No, it’s the website’s fault. You only need explicit consent if you’re tracking users beyond what your service obviously requires to function, the problem is these sites are stalking you.
And if it’s even slightly harder to decline than to accept they’re likely not in compliance anyway so it’s definitely not the EU’s fault.
Social security numbers being involved in a breach does not mean that the breach only affects Americans. Some records might not have an equivalent ID number associated with them at all, and some records could have similar ID numbers from other countries. They also list current address as part of the data leaked but the fact many people don’t have a current address didn’t seem to cause you any confusion. The original source lists “information about relatives”, if that was in this title would you have assumed only people with living relatives were included?
“I didn’t read the article” is a poor excuse when you’re commenting on the believability of the article. What happened here is you saw an article, immediately assumed it was about the US, realised that doesn’t make any sense, then dismissed the article without even bothering to check because the title doesn’t fit the US exclusively. It’s crazy to me that you wouldn’t even consider the fact it’s not an exclusively US-based leak.
Okay, but I’m not sure how revelant that is. The article doesn’t say only Americans were affected, it says the exact opposite.
[…] this data likely comes from both the U.S. and other countries around the world.
This is the poster child for whataboutisn. You literally just argued that it’s okay for cryptocurrencies to pollute and waste energy because it takes energy to make glass too.
That’s an understatement, PayPal will pretty much always side with the buyer no matter how ridiculous and outlandish their claim. I even had one “dispute” where the scammer changed the dispute reason which caused PayPal to ignore what I’d already submitted and close it in their favour by default as “no response”. PayPal is very much pro-scammer, avoid if possible.
It’s been a few years since I’ve had to deal with clients directly, I don’t think I’ll ever miss it.
Because that would be the same quality. This is the internet, if an image is still recognisable after being shared five times you’re doing something wrong.
I made a fair bit of commission upgrading people to much much better hardware and speed for not much more money.
See that’s your entire problem right there, you’re in sales. Your incentive is to drain every penny you can out of customers through useless up-sells and selling hardware to get the service they’re already paying for.
You literally just argued that if your 600mbps router only supplies an 80mbps connection then your 600mbps connection is 80mbps. And speed isn’t divided equally by the number of devices connected either, that’s just ridiculous. The impact of a connected but idle device is minimal. Also, why would you need 600mbps for only 4 devices? You could stream 4k video on all four devices 24/7 and you’re still not using even a quarter of that bandwidth; you’re looking at a recommendation of only 15mbps to 25mbps per user for a 4k-viable internet connection.
Here’s a ping to my stock ISP-supplied router on another floor and three rooms away via wifi:
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
611 packets transmitted, 611 received, 0% packet loss, time 623436ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.647/0.779/2.105/0.110 ms
It’s obviously impossible to improve a 0% packet loss, switching to a wired connection would be a considerable cost for minimal benefit (though admittedly that ping is unusually good, I’d normally expect slightly over 1ms average). I’m also getting over my advertised speeds according to fast.com and speedtest.net despite being on wifi and running through Mullvad so I suppose the problem might just be that I’m not using whichever scummy ISP you work for.
I have a home office and have work from home (or hybrid) for pretty much my entire career, even before WFH was normalised. I can assure you a wired connection is not a necessity to work from home.
So the ISP isn’t to blame when the cheap ISP-provided hardware fails, and the solution isn’t for the ISP to replace insufficient ISP-owned hardware but for you to buy your own instead?
The “wire everything” approach is a little excessive for most home networks too, outside of exceptional circumstances modern WiFi on modern hardware is more than enough for home users. It’s only worth the time and money to wire everything if you’ve identified specific issues with signal loss or noise, don’t just do it by default.
I feel like someone not releasing anything but squatting IP rights for 13 years is a poor argument for longer copyright terms.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that language models are effective lie detectors, it’s very widely known that LLMs have no concept of truth and hallucinate constantly.
And that’s before we even get into inherent biases and moral judgements required for any form of truth detection.
My gut reaction is that this won’t work long-term. Users on youtube often point to specific timestamps in a video in comments or link to specific timestamps when sharing videos, meaning there needs to be some way to identify the timestamp excluding ads. And if there’s a way to do that there’s a way to detect ads.
Of course, there’s always the chance they just scrap these features despite how useful they are and how commonly they’re used; they’ve done similar before.
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact there’s a group who intentionally named themselves “proud boys” which somehow isn’t a group for openly gay men. If they weren’t a neo-fascist terrorist organisation I’d think the whole thing was a joke.
A little ham-fisted, sure, but if you think it’s irrelevant you evidently didn’t take any time to actually think about it (you did also reply instantly, so I’ll take that over you lacking reading comprehension).
I’ll simplify.
Digital piracy is illegal copying of unlicenced content.
Alice creates content.
Alice licences the content to Bob.
Bob decides to distribute the content with advertisements from Charlie.
You download the content.
Charlie does not pay Bob.
You did not breach any licences.
You did not pirate the content.
And just to further clarify, Alice is the person who made a video, Bob is Youtube, Charlie is an advertiser. Your argument is not an ad is piracy if “the advertisement company [hasn’t] paid the content creator.” The advertiser pays the distribution company, and the relationship between those two companies is irrelevant. The advertiser failing to pay does not retroactively turn you into a pirate.
The whole argument is pointless in the first place, it’s irrelevant whether or not you consider ad blocking to be technically piracy. A sensible adblock argument would be around the ethics of manipulation versus payment, or security versus whatever it is advertisers want. Arguing semantics doesn’t matter.