I was gonna say I never heard of "dapp" before. Searched it and only crypto sites came up. I don't even think I like the phrase "decentralized app" as it is being used.
It's the damn headline. You literally didn't read anything. You clicked on a fuckcars post and just made a comment based on nothing in the post at all. That's literally trolling. You made a random comment purely to get a rise out of people.
I think they're commenting about the size of cars as a reason they don't like 'em. Sort of like saying "I manage a football team on Xbox but won't go buy a $3.5 billion franchise." The average car weighs about two tons though. At least according to the first Google result (avg car weighs a bit over 4k pounds).
Granted it's not all the time, but I do agree that a lot of the time, the rule breaking is incentivized by cars' problematic driving and not sharing the road well. If cars were on a whole more friendly with cyclists and knew the proper rules as well, it probably wouldn't happen as often.
No one disagrees that rule breakers need to stop. But licensing doesn't look like it'd help, considering drivers are licensed and break more rules than cyclists.
The summary uses the term "vanilla JS" in a weird way. It's just to further denote it's not TypeScript because TypeScript is a language that essentially extends JavaScript. It's not a framework. This is about language choice of TS vs JS inside large complex libraries only.
Libraries tend to have a need for generic typing due to the nature of being code used by other code. So you get a lot of syntax craziness involving Type parameters.
You can still use the libraries mentioned in a TS project. They're just not written in TS. TS and JS can be in the same project. Moreover, it even states this isn't about developers using TS in non-library projects.
It's not part of the browser engine. It's part of the browser "chrome" (part of its namesake), the thing around the browser engine. So this isn't in Edge and goes without saying, it isn't in Firefox etc.
It's still bad. Chrome is still a popular browser.
Edit: it does keep track of your browser activity, just doesn't share the whole bunch of data with their parties.
I only see evidence that this replaces FLoC, but not cookies. Even Google's statements about what cookies and data they collect hasn't changed. This is a Chrome specific capability. Topics replaces Federated Learning of Cohorts which didn't use cookies either.
Edit: nevermind. FLoC was a technology that allowed ad data to be collected even when third party cookies are disabled. Essentially it allowed chrome to collect data that Firefox and Safari already blocked when third party cookies are disabled.
So this isn't replacing cookies at all, just FLoC. And it's not replacing something "worse". It's still totally something that Chrome is collecting without cookies or any need to do so.
yes, the definition changes. it used to mean one point. now it means a point 10 miles away. come on. simple substitution. if you define it only with relative terms then its poorly defined as there's no actual concrete meaning. so you either have a poorly defined term or you have a term that has changed meaning over time. which still makes it poorly defined. i don't know how else to explain it. so i'm going to leave it here. this is going in circles.
You say that as if clearing out cookies isn't also a thing one can do. All they're doing is opting you into more directly handing them your data. And I didn't see any mention that cookies will be discontinued by them anyway.
In the end, the big problem here is that it's being routed as a privacy feature when it's anything but. It's just a different kind of privacy violation.
It's simply not about privacy so it shouldn't be labeled as such.
It's not overly simplistic. It's simply not a privacy feature if the core functionality is sharing your data. Privacy is if they stopped sharing data. Sharing more data is antithetical to privacy.
If the threshold changed, the actual definition changed. The same words to describe a different point. If the definition described two different things, its changed. That's basic and simple reasoning. If a definition no longer describes the same thing, it's because it's actual meaning has changed.
That there are more than one definition is kind of the problem. And that you'd characterize any of them as "good" sounds more like a euphemism for "good enough for a particular scenario."
This threshold has changed over time. So I don't think it's a good definition of it hasn't always been the same point.
And the rest of your comment is just philosophy. You're neither wrong nor right. Definition of self is not a concept there's really any consensus over.
I was gonna say I never heard of "dapp" before. Searched it and only crypto sites came up. I don't even think I like the phrase "decentralized app" as it is being used.