cyborgx7

50 ms·

241.
Why not ban all advertising? (1999)(independent.co.uk)
4 points by cyborgx7 7y ago|1 comments
242.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
It seems like if all advertising gets banned, no political party individually would be put at a dissadvantage to the others.
243.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
>I remember our last discussion! I'm impressed. I don't think I ever remember individual usernames. >Something I've been thinking about is sending a header to websites informing them I'm going to block their ads so
244.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
>Forbid advertisements. I'm glad I'm not the only one saying it in a thread, for once. > We can't solve a political problem with purely technical solutions. This is something that is sometimes hard to accept for the hac
245.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
It's always fun to read comments by people who clearly only read the title and haven't clicked on the link.
246.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
I believe you, but this still seems strange to me with the overdesigned behemoths, on the verge of toppling over at any moment, most big corporate sites appear to be nowadays.
247.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
I misread your comment then. I assumed you were saying this is the strategy we should adopt on those issues.
248.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
I agree that this is not an insignificant aspect. But I still don't think it is therefore something that should be tolerated.
249.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
They are still shipping us off someplace else. The fact that they technically put their name in front of it to trick the browser, doesn't change this.
250.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
> The digital equivalent of voting with your wallet. And like voting with your wallet, it will be completely ineffectual in actually addressing the problem. > Kind of like climate change Another area where the need for comprehensive s
251.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
I wasn't aware putting trackers on subdomains was a working adblocker workaround. Now that I know it, I'm surprised it hasn't been a massive problem since much earlier.
252.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
If I'm understanding this correctly, it's only first party tracking in that it comes from a subdomain of the domain of the website you are browsing. But that subdomain points at a third party tracking provider. So this still seems
253.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
>Corporate networks don't magically add latency. That's why I specified "this specific" corporate network. >You would need a corporate network that idiotically sent things over the wire to a corporate office on ano
254.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
The stream I saw said there was barely any noticeable lag. Not discounting this experience, but I suspect the specific corporate network might play a significant role here.
255.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
E is the most used letter, right? Just find the symbol that appears the most often and that is probably an E. /s
256.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
I actually meant to have one say false and one say true. I just made a mistake in writing it out.
257.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
So the reason not to vote for Labour is that the Tories are too evil and can't be trusted?
258.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
I would gladly vote for paying all employees of all ISPs their current salary from taxes for a while, if it meant free, nationalized fast fiber in every home.
259.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
That's a Tory policy. Let's hope a Labour Government would also get rid of that.
260.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
I was using the words of the comment I responded to. If the fibre was of inferior quality, that would be the space for other companies to compete in.
261.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
So we should have worse, more expensive internet instead, to keep people in positions that aren't necessary? That seems like a terrible idea. Presumably a Labour Manifesto with this policy in it, would also include a bunch of provision
262.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
I've had times when a pointless meeting with too many participants was a welcome break. Of course, just reducing the work week and having more free time would be a lot better. But I'll take what I can get.
263.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
And it would lead to everybody having the fastest fibre for free. What is wrong with bankrupting companies that aren't needed anymore?
264.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
0%
265.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
Copyright infringement is not stealing. It's as much stealing as it's sharing.
266.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
Of course, a uniform distribution is implied. The fact that you choose to misunderstand this on purpose, doesn't make you smart or right. It makes you a pedant who is still wrong.
267.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
>0% and 100% are indefensible for any uninformed prior. If none of the answers are correct, the chance of picking the correct answer is 0%.
268.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
If 6 was true, then 5 would also be true, making 6 incorrect. It has to be 5
269.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
The answer to that question is obviously 0% Now, what would be the answer to the same question with the answer options: A) 20% B) 40% C) 60% D) 20% E) 0%
270.
by cyborgx7 7y ago
It would be very boring if it was paradoxical. It would just be a more complicated version of: 1. Statement 2 is wrong. 2. Statement 1 is wrong. Edit: I just looked up Yablo's paradox. It only works because there are infinite statement

More ›