horseshoe crabs are always referred to with the word horseshoe in front

They weren’t in this case, so that “always” seems to be a stretch.

if one cares about communication.

It’s made clear in the article. If one cares about communication they’re reading past a headline.

Horseshoe “blood” is blue, and it’s not actually blood it’s hemolymph. It is blue crab blood. Blue blood from a crab.

It’s interesting how you went from “it’s not relevant at all” to “it’s relevant in general but not in this case” after I gave you a reply.

If you have found a new security or privacy flaw, I would love to hear about it. But pushing your irrelevant opinions on others who are not interested, is unpleasant for us, and a waste of time for you.

My opinions are not irrelevant, as I laid out in my previous comment that you just agreed with. Others are obviously interested, and it’s not “unpleasant” for them, as people responded and upvoted (and no downvotes)–indicating it’s relevant. It’s not a waste of time for me, because not only did it take me negligible time to type literally three sentences (actually, I copy-and-pasted the comment from one I made earlier, I didn’t even write it fresh here), but it has value to others and as such is not a waste of time for me.

So whether he agrees with you that guys can become girls or vice versa, or whether he believes the same narrative that you do regarding corona is simply irrelevant.

The strawman construction was a nice little touch. Completely ignoring the part where I laid out that my personal stance and agreement or disagreement with the CEO is irrelevant, you act as if I personally disagree with the CEO and then use that to dismiss me.

You obviously have an agenda. So be it. But this conversation is truly a waste of time: you were obviously wrong and as soon as that was pointed out you shift goalposts.

If you think the two are unrelated you’re oblivious to the considerations that must be taken into account when discussing potential privacy concerns in software. It’s not ad hominem to acknowledge that the personal convictions and values of the CEO (and indeed other employees) can potentially decrease the sense of privacy of a product.

If the CEO is so adamant in his anti-X stance that he decides it’s acceptable to censor access to materials about X, or perhaps worse that he decides to expose anyone using his software that discusses or supports X, would not consider those valid concerns?

Companies are made of people, and software is made by people. Since people are not neutral, companies and software are also not neutral. The stances of a company or software on privacy, freedoms, etc are all influenced by the stances on those exact issues by the constituent people of the company and developers of the software.

Consider Elon Musk and Twitter. Given Elon’s personal beliefs and how adamant he is to enact and enforce those beliefs, do you consider him a neutral influence on the privacy of Twitter as a product? There is no way to see him as a neutral influence; he has direct influence by his ideological stance on the software. As such, if you have enough distrust in him or his ideological stance, that can transfer to distrust in Twitter as software.

In fact, it’s not even about whether I support the CEO or whether I think his stance is “right” or “wrong” as you imply. It’s entirely about how the CEO sees his beliefs in relation to the company and product he’s overseeing. I could entirely agree with the CEO and still consider their influence to be a detriment to the product if he puts his ideology ahead of pragmatism, for example.

ISPs coming out and bothering you cause you pirate stuff? Never heard of it.

You must have the distinct privilege of not living in the USA or several other Western countries.

I’d jump ship immediately if I got one such letter.

If you mean jump ship off that ISP, there’s nothing you can do. You can go to another ISP (if there even is one in your area), who will do the exact same thing. You can jump ship entirely and not have internet, I guess.

Oh that’s interesting. That makes sense. Like I said I’m using the Kindle 4 from 2011 and it has a slightly different form factor and no way to use a magnetic case.

Huh. Yeah that must be a thing with newer models. Mine doesn’t have any magnets, and its not in a shape a case would even make sense. I do press a button to dismiss the “screensaver” (the thing that keeps you from accidentaly turning pages with side buttons when not in use), but I don’t see an ad on that screensaver. It’s pencils laying on a book, and has been for about a decade now.

I don’t follow. When you say magnetic cover, do you mean some of the newer models? Also, what does pressing the button to unlock it do? Does that turn on wifi or something? I have to press a button to turn my Kindle 4 “on” (aka remove the screensaver and show my book) but that doesn’t cause an issue.

I have a Kindle paperwhite without ads, worth paying extra imo.

Pro tip: if you leave off wifi for long enough, the ads seem to expire and they’re permanently replaced by some generic pencils image or something. And, since having wifi on can cause the kindle to overwrite your cover images, I sync with calibre over USB anyway. I have the ad-supported Kindle 4 from 2011 and haven’t had ads on it since 2012.

But they serve ads. Do they say these ads are fully anonymized? The primary reason other vendors suck up all your data is precisely to serve ads. Why is Brave’s serving ads different?

I personally don’t find inserting affiliate referral codes acceptable either, but yes at the end of the day this is the user’s preference whether or not this is all acceptable to them.

Edit: My comment below was originally based on a faulty understanding of how EDDM mailers worked and a faulty assumption I based on that ignorance. What they did in reality is little more than sending out spam mail, it was not a privacy violation. I’ve removed the mention of the EDDM mailers since they aren’t relevant given this.

I’d take a peek at the wikipedia entry about their business model, which mentions some stuff that isn’t the most savory:

… Brave earns revenue from ads by taking a 15% cut of publisher ads and a 30% cut of user ads. User ads are notification-style pop-ups, while publisher ads are viewed on or in association with publisher content.

On 6 June 2020, a Twitter user pointed out that Brave inserts affiliate referral codes when users navigate to Binance

With regards to the CEO, he made a donation to an anti-LGBT cause when he was CEO of Mozilla in 2008. He lost his job at Mozilla due to his anti-LGBT stance. He also spreads COVID misinformation.

As others have pointed out, it’s also Chromium based, and so it is just helping Google destroy the web more than they already have.

Ah interesting. That is unfortunate.

Isn’t there another person who knows how, but just restricts themselves to very specific games? I wonder if there’s any way to convince them to help replace the too-far-gone Empress. I understand they probably also don’t want to just make the cracking info public, as it would presumably just accelerate the cat-and-mouse game, but perhaps they could be convinced to help bring a new person up to speed? I wonder if they could be convinced by donations to mentor an Empress replacement?

What a horrible source. This is really shit reporting.

They’ve hyperlinked the word “hot dogs” to another article on their site titled “Hot dogs sold as ‘vegan’ dogs at Tel Aviv Hanukkah event”.

They’ve also spent part of the article estimating the average hot dog size, converting it between units, and converting the reported asteroid size into hot dog units.

All of the section headers are lame hotdog based puns.

This whole shitty presentation adds nothing to the article. It’s distracting. In fact, if you take out this bullshit, the article is really only a couple of meaningful paragraphs. And while there is absolutely value in comparing an asteroid size to a daily object (say, “the size of a car”), there is absolutely zero value, perhaps negative value, in comparing an asteroid size to a collection of sequential hot dogs, or two superbowl trophies.

I could somewhat understand if NASA themselves where putting out press releases with these weird comparisons: that would be a somewhat playful and innocent way to increase public interest. But when it is coming from third-party sources, who push it way past the point of playfulness into absurdity, it loses any value.

Also, unless I’m missing it: they don’t even link to a NASA statement. So it’s pure editorializing without linking to their primary source.

What are these numbers? Lives lost? Bombs dropped?

Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.

Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn’t even the first time I’ve seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they’ll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.

If you truly believe this drivel, you’re doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.

From what I’ve seen, when they say “pushing it down your throat” what they really mean is “existing while gay”. If it isn’t hidden, it’s apparently being “pushed down your throat”.

Also, in the real world, people saying how “awesome it is to be trans lgbtq” are saying how awesome it is to be yourself as someone who is lgbtq. They aren’t saying it’s awesome compared to not being lgbtq (though one could argue there is value in having different-than-the-majority life experiences). It’s just another way to imply that lgbtq people are actively trying to “convert” people to being lgbtq.

Purchasing power parity

You’re right, the transatlantic train should be good enough for anyone. Who needs planes when a train gets you across the ocean with much less pollution!

No need to be aggressive mate. Your replies are rather antagonistic.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not just monetary efficiency that I meant there. It’s fuel/emissions efficiency that would suffer as well. And that should be of concern to everyone.