Click reader view and refresh, without leaving reader view.

Right but you could at least be reasonably sure it wouldn’t be outright spied on from the person you’re sending it to. Now it’s almost a guarantee.

Like if I sent something to a friend of mine, I could be fairly certain it wouldn’t end up in the wrong hands unless they got compromised or did something stupid. I could trust their competence.

Now everyone that isn’t actively managing their own windows installation is absolutely compromised, as a rule. Like I can’t just send an email to my mom anymore, from now on its always my Mom and Copilot.

Yes, and that’s a valid concern, but there’s no good answer here. That’s why it’s such a problem. From now on, one of the most widely used operating systems in the world is going to be harvesting data from any and everything that appears on it. Meaning any software you use to send any form of electronic communication, if a Windows computer opens it, and the user either hasn’t bothered or doesn’t know how to disable recall, your information has been harvested by Microsoft.

There’s just no way to limit or avoid this. We need regulation.

Oh yes.

In the original Japanese version of the movie, Mewtwo is less of a “destroy the world” villain and Mew is less of of an innocent that shows up to save the day.

It’s not quite as big a flip as the person above is suggesting, but it is absolutely more gray.

Basically, Mewtwo is depicted as deeply confused and trying to justify its existence by proving that it and the other clones are superior. It’s not out to destroy anything, he just wants to prove he deserves to exist.

Meanwhile, Mew is actually kind of a purist, claiming the clones are just fakes and don’t deserve to exist. It definitely starts the movie as a vibing space cat, but once it encounters the clones, it instigates the battle as much as Mewtwo does.

I could get into it but this article does a good job summarizing it.

https://www.denofgeek.com/culture/how-the-us-version-of-pokemon-the-first-movie-changed-its-meaning/

It’s legitimately embarrassing how many people can’t seem to grasp that this isn’t the “fuck you” they think it is.

They aren’t shocked or upset, they’re not panicking because you left, because it’s all the same to them either way. You either access the site while blocking the ads and they get no income from your views, or you go away and they don’t get income from your views. Exactly nothing has changed for them except now they don’t have you pulling bandwidth.

The point is not to get YOU to turn your ad blocker off, the point is it will get SOME people to turn it off who aren’t you. If you’re not willing to turn it off, then what you do matters very little because they appreciate there’s no way they’re getting income from you ever.

It’s got the same energy as “You expect me to pay admission to enter this theme park? Well now I’m not going in, don’t you feel stupid?”

Secure from what exactly? You need to have a threat model here.

Which is funny, because developers use “secure” like this all the time as a way of scaring users into compliance for any changes they implement. If they voiced aloud what the actual threat was, they’d have to admit that often its the user’s freedom they’re afraid of. The user may do something stupid, therefore their ability to do it is dangerous for everyone.

They’d remove the front door on your home and call it more secure, all because some people don’t lock it.

Ever go hiking?

On a trail, where you are not subjected to anybody else’s noise for more than a second as they pass you by?

Skiing?

You’re skiing down a slope and a person is skiing next to you with a Bluetooth speaker?

Sit in a park?

Outdoors, where you can put some distance between yourself and them?

Maybe it’s hard to conceive of for some, but the world shouldn’t be shielded by headphones.

You’re right, it’s already shielded by air. The air that you can put between yourself and the other person.

The point was regardless of whatever they’re doing, you are only as subject to their poor behavior as you choose to be.

If you’re not going to do something about it (and please tell me what you would actually do about this beyond complaining on the internet), then your only other choice is mitigation, which involves just keeping headphones with you to block out other people’s noise or learn to find more peaceful spaces.

It’s normalized because it’s not a serious problem, it’s a minor, and extremely temporary annoyance the vast majority of the time.

Right, but they were suggesting it should be silenced at all times, by default, even for the very first notification.

Well they should silence it at that point because obviously they’re paying enough attention to it and expecting responses, so they should be waiting for the vibrate if not looking at it directly.

But people don’t need to have their phone silenced at all times while in public, they just need to be attentive enough to answer and silence it. I frequently don’t even feel the vibration.

I don’t think that’s necessarily an unpopular opinion. Burton allowed his villains to chew the scenery, and so did Schumacher. We got what we expected with Jim Carrey.

I think most people’s issue with Schumacher’s Batman is that the extreme camp was a departure from Burton and not exactly what fans wanted from a Batman film at the time. The swashbuckling 70s Batman comics, and the dark, gritty 80s Batman had more than proven the character could be done seriously. Burton put that on screen with his two movies, which carved out a more modern, more gothic, and (for the time) more grounded Batman than previous adaptations. It worked, and people liked it.

Schumacher’s movies reverted Batman back to the camp of the '60s, and was explicitly pulling from the Batman TV show, which was effectively a comedy more than anything else. Fans weren’t feeling that anymore in the 90s, and they kind of still aren’t (though I’d argue they’ve opened themselves up to camp a bit more after we’ve been to the extreme other end with Snyder).

That said, if there’s one aspect of Batman that is always permitted to be campy, it’s the villains (within reason). Jim Carrey’s Riddler is basically Frank Gorshin’s Riddler from the show, which was kind of the standard way of depicting Riddler for the era. It didn’t align with what we generally expect from Batman nowadays, but it was undeniably entertaining, and not all together unfitting.

You don’t have to post to LinkedIn to have your data on it. Unfortunately it’s almost a prerequisite to any serious job seeking in many fields.

The point is the client presumably paid for it for their users, who are their customers, but they have no idea what those users want.

Yeah, I was gonna say, holding Chrome OS above Windows because its Linux based is bizarre. That’s getting more true about Android, too. For all its faults, I can still say I’m the admin of my Windows OS (for now), and not Google.

I was gonna say, clients aren’t the only ones.

Feels like a lot of developers and especially UX designers have a bad habit of disappearing up their own asshole nowadays.

That’s generally what you hear from people who have basic use cases and simply can’t fathom other people may want or need different things from their devices.

Which is fine, they don’t have to understand. If stock is good enough for them nowadays, more power to them.

What I’m sick of is the condescension. This bizarre thing where they somehow think a person wanting control over a device they paid for is worthy of derision or shame.

It’s like if someone who only checks their email on their laptop laughing at someone using a desktop for heavier work, for no real reason other than thinking using technology differently than themselves is silly.

That other comment is a perfect example, and indictive of this weird subculture in Android spaces that hates Google but seems to be drinking from the same user-hostile Kool aid.

Personally, I’m an odd case, in that I didn’t used to root or use custom ROMs at all until recent years. Basically since Android 10, simply to get around the needless roadblocks and restore the functions I want. I was fine with stock for a long time, until Google started becoming Apple.

Shit like this is why I can’t abide GrapheneOS or their cheerleaders.

It’s legitimately the same attitude as Google itself. This parental, condescending tone, acting as if wanting freedom to control their own devices is somehow irrational. Continuing to push this toxic idea that handcuffs are the only way to protect users. Like a sysadmin at a workplace, but without the justifiable reasons.

You’re talking about laws. They’re talking about the IRS.

The IRS doesn’t make the laws. They’re an agency like any other, and a very important one.

if you fuck it up, you go to jail

No, no you don’t. This is an actual child’s understanding of how it works.

If you fuck up they often don’t even notice unless it’s substantial, otherwise they just send you a notice. You have to be willfully refusing to pay taxes for a while, repeatedly, before you’re in trouble (tax evasion) or commiting actual tax fraud.

Why would the IRS send you to jail for making mistakes on your taxes? Where taxes are now paying for your incarceration, and you can’t work to make the income to pay taxes.

Strictly speaking, tax filling software, even the free ones, have simplified it all so much that for people who have a single source of income from work and not a lot of tax forms to collect (most Americans), it’s pretty trivial. Maybe 30-60 minutes, once a year.

Less than ideal but far from the grueling, soul sucking work I was told would plague my adult life when I was a kid.

That’s why the IRS is finally doing their own online filling system. No more making Americans shell out for software, so everyone gets a nice, simple tax season.