user812

7 ms·

1.
by user812 8y ago
What does that question mean?
2.
by user812 8y ago
Thanks for your comment. Some/Many HN commentators love what one could call the collective helplessness associated with authoritarian scientism and materialism - the idea that we are thrown into a ruthless and cold universe where life
3.
by user812 8y ago
Iphone SE users aren't a small pool of users. The decision by Apple is either based solely on making more money short-term/mid-term while ignoring a part of their customer base, or waiting for the right entry point with introduing
4.
by user812 8y ago
Until Mozilla is free from Google et al., all "problems" related to blocking ads are merely theoretical.
5.
by user812 8y ago
Thanks for the explanation. I don't blame or rate Mozilla, I was just trying to explain why they are unable to move, due to their ties to Google. I don't think it's a good or bad thing, but it's the reality. Mozilla is p
6.
by user812 8y ago
Who is this "we" you are talking about? It's not like the web/society consists of one collectivist "blob" that speaks in unison.
7.
by user812 8y ago
What would Google do if Mozilla blocks all ads browser wide by default? (Which they can't do adhoc because it is probably explitically forbidden in their contract with Google) The answer will give you a clue about the question who is t
8.
by user812 8y ago
Everything is a product when you define product as "that which is produced", which is the coherent and 'materialized' output of human activity.
9.
by user812 8y ago
I will probably start using or at least trying it again when they publish version 1. For now, it's just not remotely comparable to Firefox et al. when it comes to customization, control and stability. It's basically a chrome copy
10.
by user812 8y ago
The fundamental question is who decides. Ideally the browser is the product, but not the user. For that, the browser needs to solve the question of the flow of money. Using Firefox makes you the product, because Mozilla monetizes you with
11.
by user812 8y ago
Interesting. I'm not really into physics, so it's helpful to learn about the mainstream position. I know I use sloppy wording. I still agree with Tesla that empty space can't have any properties though. Things that don't
12.
by user812 8y ago
It was "disproven" based upon a different philosophy. You can't disprove a philosophy though, you can only try to understand different philosophical models next to each other. The Einsteinian philosophy represents materialism
13.
by user812 8y ago
No, it is fundamentally wrong in itself, because it went into the wrong direction 100 or so years ago, when physicists ignored the aether model.
14.
by user812 8y ago
100 or so years ago physics went into the wrong direction, ignoring people like Tesla who argued for the aether model.
15.
by user812 8y ago
Indeed. Physics is wrong on many fundamental levels, but everytime physicists find fundamental errors, they propose another entirely theoretical layer of complexity, with the "benfit" that no one is able to practically refute it.
16.
by user812 8y ago
The media is no longer reporting things. You can't make money with reporting. The media is actively creating narratives, and one of the narratives that people are fed nowadays is that women are victims. Men and women are pitted against
17.
by user812 8y ago
I would have never thought to see it play out in real life when I read it. It is absolutely frightening. George Orwell - A Final Warning ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXm5hklbBsA )
18.
by user812 8y ago
People who excel in the relevant abilities should be in charge of corporations and institutions. Reducing people to gender is sexist, and reducing them to ethnics is racist. It's not my fault that the meaning of words has been turned u
19.
by user812 8y ago
Thanks. The fact that my comment got deleted will make me stop contributing in such a controversial way, as I respect the house rules. But it leaves a bad aftertaste, even though the strong moderation on this site undoubtly keeps everything
20.
by user812 8y ago
Note that I quoted someone else. This is not my thoughts. I am not interested in what should or shouldn't be, first and foremost. I am interested, sociologically, in understanding. I am interested to see what can happen with women in p
21.
Mass action against Google over iPhone data blocked by London court(reuters.com)
2 points by user812 8y ago|0 comments
22.
by user812 8y ago
Brave has multiple layers to actually help content-creators. It is beyond me how anyone can frame it in the opposite direction. Layer 1: Blocking everything that is not helpful for the user (i.e. being a browser that is a user-agent first a
23.
by user812 8y ago
I don't havy any connection to Brave. I just see the potential, and want Brave to succeed. > "What happens to the small sites that don't track users, but display some ads to keep the servers running? Hope that they get &qu
24.
by user812 8y ago
At least go to brave.com and read the FAQ. The tracking is anonymized. Of course Brave is removing the competition within their own product , that's how it usually works in a free market.
25.
by user812 8y ago
Edit: Sorry for not following the rules
26.
by user812 8y ago
Well, after all it's called user-agent, not publisher-agent ;)
27.
by user812 8y ago
The copyright reform doesn't affect user agents. Besides, it isn't even in effect yet.
28.
by user812 8y ago
Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the wallets of publishers, minus a fee. Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free. Consequ
29.
by user812 8y ago
Valid question. Their definition of privacy doesn't go so far, and I assume if they would really want to create an ecosystem where this kind of data is protected they would need to create their own search enginge. Because google is sti
30.
by user812 8y ago
"Not the one you're responding to, but to say his/her reasoning isn't "legitimate" is a bit rich when the GP (me) was about ethics." I agree, I overlooked that.

More ›