chownie

That is, to me, blindingly obvious in that it says to interrogate your own interests, not to interrogate others? My original "this is basically off topic" still applies.

If we revisit the original thread comment it doesn't really bring politics into this, or force people to consider their own political interests, or actually mention anything political at all!

This is very obviously your own bugbear brought into the conversation uninvited.

"why do you like this?" != telling someone why they like said thing, this is basically entirely off topic

Transport is often a natural monopoly, rails almost always. There's no way to run that as a private market because no one can meaningfully compete.

N=1 but I'm colourblind and frequently I need to talk to someone about a UI colour while not having any idea what the colour is called, this kind of thing is useful for me.

It isn't universal, my phone gallery doesn't support webp at all by default and the windows gallery only supports non-animating webp from what I can tell?

The last high profile case of this (the Oblivion "body type" one) was accompanied with a kiwifarms link by the uploader. It was a link to a thread in which users were competing for how many trans people they could encourage into completing suicides. These are the people you're carrying water for.

Yes! Thank you! This is actually the perfect example, because that mod wasn't removed and the author was banned after he specifically said he was making the mod for the purpose of upsetting trans people. Even better with the context that he was linking to kiwifarms, a known hotspot for online harassment.

Nothing proves with more certainty that the GP of this thread has it backwards, the removed mods were uploaded with bad intentions.

> No, they really weren't, they were made to restore an experience that matches 99.99% of people's own experiences and sensibilities at the very start of a game

Exceptionally funny to read this in the face of the most recent example, where the author was banned after he explicitly said that he was making his mod for the purpose of upsetting people.

If we're being honest those mods were not inoffensive, in fact most of them were specifically made for the purpose of causing offense.

Any answer that begins with "if everyone just-" is tantamount to doing nothing and those are the other options available, nothing except for weight loss drugs has managed to put a dent in widespread obesity.

Ctrl+F "cancer" 1 result, in the footer, unrelated to the page content

So what you actually meant was "it's definitely not as bad as cigarettes" given your lack of evidence despite the link ? Or what, this makes no sense

Nope, that's a plain lie. Cancer risks don't line up between the two at all.

It turns out if you login-wall the site you can get away with a few catastrophic outages, people won't even remember them.

The term "kill the boer" was almost certainly added to the system prompt because Grok would begin talking about specifically that song, unprompted, to millions of people no matter what they were talking about.

This is not a case of trying to remove bias. I don't for a second believe anyone from the demographic using this site acting naive about that either, just have whatever political opinion and don't pretend this is respectable.

This is a HN feature meant to de-editorialise the given headline, I personally think it does more harm than good as in this case

I had to stop and re-read this comment chain because I was sure this was satire

In the same way a doctor might step in on your sick plan to give yourself a piercing with your keychain, yeah. They probably should be saying it.

If the floor is 46% and the ceiling is 92.7% that 3% is much less likely to be noise.

> But if you have real evidence of csam on xitter any journalist not owned by alt right will jump on it. One good news story by a reputable outlet and Visa/MasterCard is out of xitter 100%. If you're lucky they'll also stop processing ad money and the platform is toast. Do it, leak it.

This already happened and I believe nothing changed as a result. 100,000 tweets found between march and may in 2023 which matched at least 1/40 of the CSAM hashes they used.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/06/stanford_internet_obs...

Mijoharas and I both mentioned the adult industry, you've closed the scope down to just pornhub for some reason -- essentially you're arguing some other argument no one else made.

Payment providers note higher chargeback rates for adult/porn services than those for other mundane services, this is a longstanding -- pre-internet, even -- pattern which has nothing to do with the pornhub situation within the last 5 years.

The classic example case is "honey, I don't know what this charge on our monthly expenses is I promise, look I'll charge it back" — ie cover up for an angry spouse.

Nah, it makes gp cool as fuck actually.

You appear to be going off the rails -- this entire debacle is about Firefox, which runs locally on your machine, you can see if they're collecting different data (they aren't) or sending it somewhere else (they aren't).

There's no evidence they're doing anything with any data and there never was. All of this outrage is purely centered on a ToS update which they've since refactored in response.

> The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

Please read.

Was it?

That comment is constituted from two quotes, one of them entirely fabricated, and then a hypothetical provided with no basis. If Mozilla don't own the data and their license only allows Firefox to do what you're requesting it do, then I don't see what points are being made except fearmongering.

> This is a lie. It is not removed.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms...

Read the italicised text.

It gives them the right to use your data, for the purpose you indicate by using Firefox. Additionally, from the very next line which you and GP conveniently chopped out:

> This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

They've since removed the reference to the privacy policy since as they said, users are clearly confused by it.

We can tell that nothing materially has changed because people are linking git diffs of the FAQ and no one is linking to any changes in the source code, which is equally as available.

From that perspective it's super transparent, if you bother to look.

>> https://www.mozilla.ai/

So you googled "mozilla ai" and clicked the first link, which does literally nothing to support the claim you made up.

Let me make a wild guess, you don't actually know what the Mozilla AI project does.

>>without need for payment from you and

> No need to pay YOU, you are twisting things around.

I notice you ignored the rest of the entire comment to yet again make something up and get mad. Why would anyone need to pay you for the data you're sending voluntarily? Should HN be paying us for these comments?

> Have fun, i stop here arguing.

Yeah I bet, have a good one. Hope at some point all of this clicks for you, because I think you fully do not understand what's going on.

Mozilla legal apparently think otherwise. They have been spooked by the recent California legal movements which can apply the label "sell" to behaviours we wouldn't normally consider selling user data, like setting the default search engine.