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.
Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?
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?
The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.
The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book “The Boy On The Bridge”
You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question,
The honest answer was in the post they were originally replying to.
I will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.
Youtube isn’t an existential need.
Ad’s or bust isn’t a real dichotomy.
Here’s another honest suggestion, drop free ad supported Youtube as a product and go full premium.
It’d significantly reduce infrastructure costs and they’d be able to fund it with subscription monies.
edit: used the wrong quote at the start
Brazil (1985)
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 )
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”
That’s reasonable
I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”
if someone pointing out that you are saying “fact” but aren’t meeting any of the definitions of a fact seems like an attack to you i suspect you’re probably having a bad time on the internet. Again you dodge most of the actual points of the conversation, probably intentionally.
Also i’m pretty sure “Fucking lmfao.” has a redundant “Fucking” in it , but I’m not holding my breath on you caring about that given how this has gone so far.
Doesn’t seem like this is going to go anywhere interesting, so I’ll just add you to the blocklist and be happy nothing of value(to me) was lost.
Here is one example
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I mean you can just find in page for “United States”
Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.
The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.
I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we’ve skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.
I’ll just assume you don’t have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.
Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.
edit: added answer to your question
Julie d’Aubigny