Ah, so it’s a mutual block but initiated from one side.

Thanks.

Is…that not what’s supposed to happen?

I don’t have any other socials so I’m not too up on what the standards are.

How so?

IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.

old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Do you have an example of this ?

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 so anything different in the future.

Same, they are currently still working through the 2019 backlog.

There is the option of going through “Right To Choose” system, which is ostensibly quicker but i think you have to pay for things yourself.

GP or doctor can give you proper advice about that though.

There are officially recognised tests that potentially lead to officially recognised diagnoses. For ADHD specifically that can lead to access to medication you wouldn’t have without the official diagnosis.

For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.

Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.

Condolences on your loss.

Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.

Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.

What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That’s a win win right?

Damn, all but 2.

Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.

TL;DR;

Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting

See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.

The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn’t happen.

Perhaps i’m misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it’s going to seem like you are making things up.

At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it’s a step in the right direction.

Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the “Just to pre-empt…” quote mentions relative "real"ness.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.

Not big on history, are you?

Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :

Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.

You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?

Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.

The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it’s not a point i added to the conversation.

But i suspect you know this.

This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )

• Bad faith arguments
• References to things that didn’t happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn’t relate to the “argument” being made
• Fallacies in place of actual points
• Personal attacks
• Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
• Complaints that i’m pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
• Equivalent of “I’m not arguing with someone who clearly doesn’t understand <Pseudo-point with no coherent supporting argument>”
• lol
• lmao

They could just be deeply confused about how a conversation generally works?

Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you’ll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.

Prove that god exists and i’ll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.

Just so we’re clear, faith isn’t proof, in fact its definition is almost universally “belief, in the absence of proof”

Lots of people believing also doesn’t equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”

Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that “would or would not allow” something then we can get on to the conversation part.

Just in case there’s any confusion, i’m all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.

Note the “organised”, it’s important.

Also the “religions are just socially acceptable cults” train.

It might seem like I’m on two trains but in reality it’s a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it’s basically a complete overlap.

See the above.

The above wasn’t addressing any of the points so I’m not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.

Just in case it’s unintentional, I’ll try again, but with more describing.

The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with “belief” in a being.

One of those things is a “being”/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or “construct”.

Also the first “quote i used” was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.

So you’d be good with phrases such as “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time” to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn’t make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

“God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

vs

“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.

That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.

The difference between:

Man speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota’s

vs

Man known for previously running on a platform of meat-quota deregulation. speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota’s, surrounded by meat industry lobbyists.

Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that’s not necessarily bias.