_g0xr

I mean, he's not getting a royal allowance, even though his father does. It sounds like they already have peaceful transition away from monarchy worked out, in which case, threatening or committing violence is senseless and potentially counterproductive.

He gets inheritance rights, so he'll inherit money from the royal estate (built up through his ancestors' royal allowances, or through any other means the throne has used to accumulate wealth), even though he doesn't get a royal allowance.

However, if he didn't inherit, then his share of that money would have gone to any siblings/other relatives instead, anyway. The royal family as a whole doesn't appear to gain or lose any wealth.

Unless, I guess it's possible it could affect inheritance taxes one way or the other, if the state takes inheritance taxes?

It sounds like the inheritance is following the agreed terms of a transition away from monarchy. I don't know anything about the specific situation, but in general, I'd think that maybe a generous but peaceful separation agreement with the royal estate might work out to be cheaper (in multiple ways) for the state and the people than a harsher takeover/repossession of royal wealth would be. It really depends on the political situation.

I get what you mean, but using a word with a very specific meaning in a legal context to mean something else that's similar and likewise in a legal context, but with a more vague definition, will just create confusion. This kind of confusion in a legal context can cause major problems for people when they're trying to understand the law as it applies to their case.

I don't think calling this nullification even adds any "spirit" meaning that isn't already present in "the grand jury declined to indict".

These two things can be similar, but the details matter here.

Is it not happening on Chrome even when you don't have the browser itself logged into a Google account?

That makes it worse, not better.

They literally didn't deny that. They made a separate point you appear not to have actually read.

Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. They'd absolutely end up allowing their own "acceptable" telemetry and ads. Even if they didn't, it would be unlikely to ever be as effective as Ublock Origin. Much like how Chromium browsers' built-in adblocking is barely anything in comparison, even on Manifest V2.

And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I like a few of the Chromium browsers well enough, but they are ultimately at the mercy of Google.

I hope Ladybird does well, too.

But this change breaks functionality for some people, without correspondingly improving anything for others. So what's the point?

In my experience, software that is designed to work only for the most average user ends up feeling terrible for most everybody, because most people deviate from the average in one way or another, at one time or another.

It feels especially bad when the software makes assumptions about what the user wants, to the point of including a button that doesn't always do the same thing when pressed, and which doesn't even tell the user it doesn't always do the same thing when pressed.

Just look at all the complaints Microsoft gets for the way Windows constantly reverts or ignores user settings.

Or the way it feels to google a very specific set of search terms, only to receive back 20 completely irrelevant listicles that answer a statistically more likely question you didn't ask.

Light text on a dark background can be illegible for people with astigmatism. (Somewhat depending on the axis of astigmatism vs. the direction of text.) Or if not illegible, at least a blurry, uncomfortable mess to read.

Astigmatism is very common, and not all astigmatism is corrected or correctable with glasses or contacts. Contacts, especially, are hit-and-miss for correcting astigmatism. Toric contacts, which are weighted to rotate into (hopefully) the correct position over the eye, are sometimes too uncomfortable or too unreliable (because they rotate out of position) compared to non-toric lenses. And besides, many people use their computer or phone without their glasses on/contacts in.

Additionally, dry eyes or other eye conditions can sometimes cause similar blurring issues with light text on dark backgrounds.

So, I ask that people please do include light mode options for accessibility. Even a half-assed implementation of light mode is better than none.

(If you insist on only supporting dark mode, low-contrast dark modes tend to be a bit better for astigmatism than AMOLED/true black dark modes. I suspect this might create problems for people who need high contrast in order to make out the text, however. I haven't looked into how well high contrast system modes function these days.)

This is a terrible idea. It's just removing functionality in order to remove a button.

With this, there will suddenly be a bazillion frustrated users who want to force an exception to their timed dark/light mode cycle, but can't because this proposed system hides how to do that. And even if they look up how to do it, they have to either wait for a specific time of day to make their change, or they have to temporarily change their system settings in order to change the program/website-specific setting.

Meanwhile, people who don't care or don't understand will just leave it on the default and probably not even look at the settings page. And everyone is used to seeing "system default" as an option at this point, anyway.

Net effect: no benefit, and some users now upset.

Why change what isn't broken?

Yeah. Google is an ad business. Their entire motive for getting invested in AI is ad revenue. We're supposed to believe they just... won't turn on the money fountain? After going into the red for their data center investments? Hell nah.

I'd expect this to be something like the Google Ad ID: technically separated from what Google considers personal information, but trivially easy to tie back to an individual person and to other information about that person.

They're continually breaking trust by illegally scraping up the internet to feed to their plagiarism machine, which they are now asking us to trust with more data. It's not a compelling arguement.

Plus, those workarounds will only continue to work (in as much as they currently do) for as long as Google suffers them to. Enshittification, as always, works in baby steps.

uBlock lite is already ineffectual in comparison to uBlock Origin. I understand that it's nonetheless good enough for many people, but it will get worse from here.

It's true that humans are not perfectly logical actors, but even so, most humans won't tell you seriously that the swimming pools in the Titanic are empty, or that glue is a great pizza topping.

At the end of the day, there's a difference between showing your work for a math problem by writing down each logical step as you work through it, vs. just blindly copying both the answer and the "show your work" part from your classmates.

That humans can fail at math, or at other kinds of logic problems, is immaterial. It's still an entirely different process, and it leads to different results.

The fact that humans often fail because they're actively prioritizing something else can also be for the best. Like, it's reasonable to get a math problem wrong because you're distracted by argueing classmates who might be about to start a fight right next to you. Or you might realize that the premise of a question itself is wrong. Or you might logically know that the Earth goes around the sun, but decide to pretend otherwise because it's not worth dying over.

Humans are always balancing priorities, and it doesn't always make sense to judge their success by a single metric like "do these math problems and show your work within 10 minutes". LLMs do not have these conflicts, even when we would want them to.

That article doesn't actually link to the supposed study. I am going to ignore it, since I have no way of checking its methodology.

Unless my adblocker is just blocking the link, but my adblocker is also blocking so many requests from that website that the blocked count climbs to over 12k within seconds, so I'm not gonna turn that off to check.