22 ms·

Have you tried Brave browser for Android? Its ad-blocking works extremely well for me.

smoldesu 4y ago
Or you could download a system-level adblocker and swerve the whole cryptocurrency/BAT thing altogether. There's a lot better solutions for fighting ads than downloading $SOME_GUY's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme.
- doodlesdev 4y ago
  > $SOME_GUY's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme. You mean the creator of JavaScript and Mozilla co-founder?
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Yes, the creator of JavaScript and Mozilla co-founder's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme. A literal someguy.
  - Kye 4y ago
    There's something like a reverse ad hominem I don't have a term for. "Person made x, so why would you doubt them on y?" Lots of people latch on to high school achievements as their life passes them by until they realize they haven't done much in a long time and have a mid-life crisis. Some people buy an expensive car. Others start a Chrome fork and crypto scheme.
    - doodlesdev 4y ago
      I'm not saying you shouldn't doubt them, I'm not sure where you got that from. The point is that this is not just "some random person" fork's, it's by someone who has established himself in the industry, so like it or not there IS a reputation behind this brand and piece of (open source) software. If the browser is good or not that's another discussion (which I'm happy to have), but the comment I was answering simply dismissed the idea of using the fork because it's by some random person, and so I pointed out that's not really fair.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - vineyardmike 4y ago
      What about if someone made a good X, then tried to make another good X? Is that still a midlife crisis
    - smsm42 4y ago
      It's called "appeal to authority", and it's a fallacy only in case where the authority is not relevant to the area in question. So, if a Nobel prize winner in literature gives advice on economics or quantum physicists or medicine, then their credentials are irrelevant, and appeal to their authority is a fallacy. If, however, a prominent physicist talks about physics, then it doesn't mean they are necessarily right, but at least the likelihood of them being right is much higher than for a random person from the street. As such, having created successful technical products in the past suggests that it's likely next product may be worth something too. It's not a guarantee, but it's a relevant data point. > haven't done much in a long time All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        > All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? I think you're giving him too much credit. This is the guy who cursed us with JavaScript and set back Web development by a solid decade, then went on to say "fuck you" to same-sex marriage before getting fired from his newly-attained CEO chair of Mozilla. His contributions to the world at large are more akin to the French: he added a lot of fancy, useless things to the world and then cowered and backpedaled when he was questioned for his beliefs.
    - krageon 4y ago
      > a reverse ad hominem I think we call this an argument from Ethos. i.e. it leans on what someone is, rather than their persuasiveness (pathos) or how well their argumentation is structured (logos). It is not a particularly strong way to make a case, but it is a way to make a case. If you have a problem with it, you are free to speak of what you feel should be considered instead. I personally think "it's a cryptocurrency and therefore a scam" argumentation is lazy and not very compelling, but perhaps your target audience does not.

Or you could download a system-level adblocker and swerve the whole cryptocurrency/BAT thing altogether. There's a lot better solutions for fighting ads than downloading $SOME_GUY's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme.

doodlesdev 4y ago
> $SOME_GUY's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme. You mean the creator of JavaScript and Mozilla co-founder?
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Yes, the creator of JavaScript and Mozilla co-founder's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme. A literal someguy.
- Kye 4y ago
  There's something like a reverse ad hominem I don't have a term for. "Person made x, so why would you doubt them on y?" Lots of people latch on to high school achievements as their life passes them by until they realize they haven't done much in a long time and have a mid-life crisis. Some people buy an expensive car. Others start a Chrome fork and crypto scheme.
  - doodlesdev 4y ago
    I'm not saying you shouldn't doubt them, I'm not sure where you got that from. The point is that this is not just "some random person" fork's, it's by someone who has established himself in the industry, so like it or not there IS a reputation behind this brand and piece of (open source) software. If the browser is good or not that's another discussion (which I'm happy to have), but the comment I was answering simply dismissed the idea of using the fork because it's by some random person, and so I pointed out that's not really fair.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    What about if someone made a good X, then tried to make another good X? Is that still a midlife crisis
  - smsm42 4y ago
    It's called "appeal to authority", and it's a fallacy only in case where the authority is not relevant to the area in question. So, if a Nobel prize winner in literature gives advice on economics or quantum physicists or medicine, then their credentials are irrelevant, and appeal to their authority is a fallacy. If, however, a prominent physicist talks about physics, then it doesn't mean they are necessarily right, but at least the likelihood of them being right is much higher than for a random person from the street. As such, having created successful technical products in the past suggests that it's likely next product may be worth something too. It's not a guarantee, but it's a relevant data point. > haven't done much in a long time All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      > All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? I think you're giving him too much credit. This is the guy who cursed us with JavaScript and set back Web development by a solid decade, then went on to say "fuck you" to same-sex marriage before getting fired from his newly-attained CEO chair of Mozilla. His contributions to the world at large are more akin to the French: he added a lot of fancy, useless things to the world and then cowered and backpedaled when he was questioned for his beliefs.
  - krageon 4y ago
    > a reverse ad hominem I think we call this an argument from Ethos. i.e. it leans on what someone is, rather than their persuasiveness (pathos) or how well their argumentation is structured (logos). It is not a particularly strong way to make a case, but it is a way to make a case. If you have a problem with it, you are free to speak of what you feel should be considered instead. I personally think "it's a cryptocurrency and therefore a scam" argumentation is lazy and not very compelling, but perhaps your target audience does not.