Senal

The subjectiveness of it being a superior product aside.

Brave is chromium under the hood and therefore contributes to the rendering engine homogeneity that leaves Google in control of web standards.

Iirc they are keeping some support for manifest v2 , for now. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out for them both financially and from a technical upkeep point of view.

I'd guess it doesn't last long, but haven't looked at it hard enough to have an informed opinion on it.

"News outlet" might be the most generous interpretation I've ever seen.

Feel free, if you can't deal with counterpoints to something as basic as this, a full conversation is probably off the table anyway.

Based on what you've written it seems you're assuming:

• Users will get any protections from this.
• That giving advertisers what they need is considered a win by everyone.
• Advertisers aren't just going to do exactly what they did with the "Do not track" option.
• Attribution is the only thing they are using the collected data for.
• This will somehow disable their ability to collect fingerprinting data.

I'm not generally one for absolutes but i would put a significant portion of my current and future earnings on the fact that even if there was 100% adoption of this new privacy preserving by everyone in the world, advertisers would still be pulling some shit.

They would be performing elaborate privacy ignoring shenanigans because privacy gets them nothing and data is potential profit.

AdTech companies have a rich history of doing absolutely everything they can to profit from anything they can, it is naive to think they will do anything different in the future.

Not until just now.

I'm more of an pondering my orb kind of person.

Not to discount your choice, you do you, is just not for me.

If you mean someone who doesn't agree with you on everything, then...sure.

As are you.

If you are looking for a place where no-one disagrees with you , an internet message board probably isn't going to be a good experience for you.

ugh, pointless discussion at this point

Agree to disagree, i find the varied perspectives interesting in their own right, not so much the content of the original post.

Obviously the barrister wasn’t saying “It was an attack related to the Bible”, that wouldn’t make any sense.

Agreed, but the definition and modern day usage of the word biblical does bring the context of religious behaviour as a comparison point, specifically the type of religious behaviour in the bible.

They aren't saying "it's caused by the bible" as much as "This is the type and level of behaviour one would expect to find in the bible ( a religious text )"

Which is still religious, unless you don't consider the bible to have any religious significance.

When he said it was mediæval he didn’t mean it was related to 14th century history, he was characterising the attack.

The whole point of using a word whose definition is to evoke a relationship to a period or concept is to relate this meaning to the subject.

Otherwise you'd just describe the situation directly.

If you wish to argue that someone is using a word in a way that is explicitly ignoring the actual definition (and common usage) of the word, you're free to do so.

Seems an odd hill to die on, but i've my own equally strange hills.

So pencils and screwdrivers are also illegal in the UK?

Not generally, no.

The 'rules' are stated here

Who was the victim?

No-one it's a stealth tax on the poor.

If the 'fine' isn't based on the financial status of whoever is paying it then it's not a fine it's a tax.

Github is going in a a different, subjectively more harmful, way.

But it'll probably be a round for a long while yet.

When they say 'biblical' i'm assuming they are using the definition as defined in pretty much any dictionary

Unless you are arguing that the bible doesn't (or shouldn't) have anything to do with religion?

I mean it's a radical stance, but not one i am opposed to personally.

Arguing that the motive was religious is a stretch, sure, but arguing that the word 'biblical' isn't religious is significantly more of a stretch.

Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?

I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be "argue and make things worse" or "don't do that", a negative and a neutral respectively.

I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.

In case we are not :

Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.

In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.