gnuhaut @ gnuhaut @lemmy.ml

Posts

8

Comments

519

Joined

2 yr. ago

This API instead

Instead of what? As I said, this is in addition to existing tracking, with some vague promise that if current tracking methods were banned or abandoned, this could be used instead. Except it's not getting banned (Mozilla is not going to out-lobby Google) or abandoned (market forces prevent that), and why oh why would I want some alternative way for ad companies to get my data in that situation anyway? Let them die.

Now if another person is going to repeat this nonsense talking point, which you have picked up strait from Mozilla's corporate PR, I'm going to lose my mind. Have some critical thinking skills. They are giving away your data right now and they give you nothing in return except a nonsense promise of a fairytale future.

Please I just want a browser that acts in the user's interest only, does not work with Meta on adtech, and does not think it's their duty to save the ad industry from itself.

Ok, I misremembered it says "pay" for the aggregate results, not sell.

Our DAP deployment is jointly run by Mozilla and ISRG. Privacy is lost if the two organizations collude to reveal individual values. We safeguard against this in several ways: trust in both organizations, joint agreements, and operational practices.

A full solution will require that advertisers — or their delegated measurement provider — receive reports from browsers, select a service, submit a batch of reports, and pay for the aggregation results, choosing from a list of approved operators.

For the trial, the results for each task will be sent to Mozilla’s telemetry systems, which will be used to access aggregated statistics.

So it doesn't say ISRG is going sell data, but the "full solution" will have other operators that get payed, i.e. they're going to sell the aggregate data. Also, they envision multiple such operators, all of which it seems need to be "trusted".

https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment#end-user-benefit

Ah yes, the hypothetical second step, in which tracking is going to be outlawed (I'm not holding my breath), except, of course, for the third party services that do the aggregating, which will "sell" (literal quote) the aggregate data, so I guess these are by semantic sophistry not adtech companies but something else.

I'm so glad this genius "plan" can be used to justify Mozilla funneling data to adtech firms right now, because in some hypothetical future timeline this somehow can be construed with a bunch of hand-waving and misdirection to be in my interest.

How about instead we have a browser that only cares about the users, and not give a fuck about adtech? Its number one goal should be to treat adtech as hostile, and fight to ruin that whole industry.

The CTO of Mozilla and some other employee are posting on r/firefox defending this shit.

They say it is their job to help the adtech industry, by finding a compromise between my interests and Facebook & co's interest. Only they get 90% of their revenue from adtech, so their actual job is to sell me out.

This "plan" involves collecting additional data on behalf of adtech right now, and then there's a hypothetical second step, in which they will lobby to force this new system on everyone. Only (a) this second step is not going to happen, and (b) instead of being tracked by adtech companies, I'd now be tracked by "trusted third parties" or some shit which then sell my data, in aggregated form, to adtech companies. Wow. Great improvement this, we now have middlemen that are, uh, by semantic re-definition, not adtech companies.

So the actual second step is "???" and the third step is presumably "profit".

This does not prevent regular ad tracking, this provides additional data to advertisers. It also means Mozilla is now tracking me, and then Mozilla does this "anonymizing" on their servers. I do not trust Mozilla with this data, and I don't trust that no way can be found de-anonymize or combine this data with other data ad networks already collect.

This is not in my interest at all. This data should not be collected. The ad networks can suck it, why should I help them?

https://blog.privacyguides.org/2024/07/14/mozilla-disappoints-us-yet-again-2/

This is a screenshot of window running a VM, so yes it is a window running a whole desktop. The top window decoration, menu bar, and the very bottom panel are not part of the old desktop, but rather from the modern host system.

I agree though, it is confusing. Main problem (and I remember this) is that this is Gnome with Enlightenment as a wm, and Enlightenment had aspirations to be more than a wm. So there's some duplication of effort there, and no integration/communication between the two projects (Gnome in the next version used sawfish/sawmill as wm, which was more coordinated with Gnome).

Enlightenment has/had its own toolkit, which you can see here in the DOX window, which is different from Gtk. Enlightenment also has a bunch of widgets, like the top bar and the stuff in the bottom corners, which are non-Gnome and clash with and are on top of the Gnome panel. The desktop icons are also zero pixels under the Enlightenment top bar, which suggest the people responsible weren't coordinating at all.

This is how Bernie can still win!

I mean general advice with potential hardware issues is remove as much hardware as possible, and see if the problem still exists. If it does, swap components one-by-one until you find the faulty component.

Since this seems to a sporadic problem, it would probably help to try find a way to trigger the problem more reliably. Maybe write a script that writes random files constantly, or something like that.

Looking at someone being tortured and your first thought is "must have done something to deserve this". That's fucked up.

And then you immediately tell everybody else this thought. "This guy probably deserved it!" You did not take a couple of seconds to check whether your theory is contradicted by the article. You victimized the guy again with your baseless accusation, but you did not think or care about that.

Your excuse for this? Can't accept the IDF soldiers being ontologically evil. Yeah me neither pal, it's a childish concept. There are actual material reasons for the cruelty. If you want to steal someone's land, you need to drive them out, and being cruel is a tried and true method to achieve this. No need to invoke good and evil, and no need to invent your own reality.

But of course, you do not afford the same to Hamas. No elaborate theory-crafting in this instance. There you have no problem declaring them just plain evil.

What flavor evil are you?

trustworthy AI

Our initial offering will include ChatGPT, Google Gemini, HuggingChat, and Le Chat Mistral

What

They're not the good guys browser wise, they're just slightly less shitty than Google, which was (still is probably?) their biggest customer.

Isn't it TSMC that's building a factory in Arizona?

Are you talking about the claim that he endangered CIA agents? That was just some bullshit they cooked up to get him on, and I don't think anybody even claimed that somebody actually died.

Imagine thinking exposing the CIA should be a crime, because the poor small beans CIA agents need protection. Who wouldn't want to protect imperial blackmailers, hit men, weapons smugglers and death squad commanders?

You are the traitor for siding with the oppressor.

1. Divide world population into groups, based on birth location an ancestry.
2. Treat them vastly different, like some kind of global apartheid system.
3. Allow some into the imperial core, but give them shit rights so they can be exploited extra hard.
4. Profit.

Very weird, I can think of some things I might check:

• It is possible that you have files on disk that don't have a filename anymore. This can happen when a file gets deleted while it is still opened by some process. Only the filename is gone then, but the file still exist until that process gets killed. If this were the problem, it would go away if you rebooted, since that kills all processes.
• Maybe it is file system corruption. Try running fsck.
• Maybe the files are impossible to see for baobab. Like if you had gigs of stuff under (say) /home on you root fs, then mount another partition as /home over that, those files would be hidden behind the mount point. Try booting into a live usb and checking your disk usage from there, when nothing is mounted except root.
• If you have lots and lots of tiny files, that can in theory use up a lot more disk space than the combined size of the files would, because on a lot file systems, small files always use up some minimum amount of space, and each file also has some metadata. This would show up as some discrepancy between du and df output. For me, df --inodes / shows ~300000 used, or about 10% of total. Each file, directory, symlink etc. should require one inode, I think.
• I have never heard of baobab, maybe that program is buggy or has some caveats. Does du -shx / give the same results?

The right to self-determination does not mean a right to an independent state or any right to secede.

Also I'm not a fan of creating a new national identity just so the US can claim part of China for its puppet regime. That's using nationalism for a colonial divide-and-conquer strategy, that's pretty much the opposite of liberation and self-determination.

Like this?

        #!/bin/sh
    set -eu

    name_from_desc() {
        LANG=C pactl list sinks \
            | awk 'BEGIN {FS=": "} /Name:/ {name=$2} /Description:/ {print name, ":", $2}' \
            | while IFS=' : ' read name desc; do
            if [ "$desc" = "$1" ]; then echo "$name"; fi
        done
    }

    id_from_name() {
        pw-cli i "$1" | awk '/id:/ {print $2}'
    }

    ret=$(LANG=C pactl list sinks | awk 'BEGIN {FS=": "} /Description:/ {print $2}' | tofi)

    wpctl set-default $(id_from_name $(name_from_desc "$ret"))


  

I don't get how that case statement of yours is even supposed to work. I'm pretty sure that's just a syntax error. I guess you want to map from description to name? But that's not remotely what that does.

It doesn't. The vast majority of countries recognize the PRC having sovereignty over Taiwan, as does the UN. There is no right to separatism or anything like that. Rather the PRC has the right to enforce their sovereignty. The US btw has no right to send to troops into China, that's an act of war.

I'm still skeptical. At the time of the original Pentium (the last 586 from Intel, the fastest of which was 300 MHz), the usual amount of RAM was something like 16 or 32 MB. A 586 with 1 GB of RAM is extremely weird and probably impossible unless it's some sort of high-end server. This does not check out.

Oh and DDR is also from around the time of the Pentium 4. I don't think there exists a machine that has both DDR and an original Pentium (aka 586). Again, this does not check out and is probably impossible.

There could be another reason it won't boot.

Are you sure it's not a 686? Because apparently the Pentium Pro from 1995 is already a 686, by 2001 the Pentium 4 was already out.