as soon as you drop the idea that you have the right not to be presented with a view of the world that makes you happy at the expense of other people's freedom
Like Carlin's argument this is simply a nice-sounding sound bite with no foundation. U.S. culture tends to idealise and reify freedom which leads to the supposed principle that freedom trumps all, but you have to step back and ask what is the point of freedom? Once that's established, you can then ask, are there situations where prioritising freedom actually works against that point?
Loosely the point of any ethical principle is the avoidance of harm. Protecting freedom gives a society that minimises, at least, some forms of government and individual harm. As an example of where freedom can be abused, consider exposing yourself, or having sex in front of, a young child every day. Clearly this will cause harm. Similarly, repeated application of freedom of speech, say following a Muslim around trying to discuss anti-Islam literature, probably crosses the line over to bullying.
The issue is that humans are limited and have to exist in public. This means there are times they cannot just 'turn away'. Even though there is probably nothing everyone agrees upon there are some commonalities between us that can be generalised enough to make this a rule. Not having sex in public is usually one of them.
Carlin's argument is flawless. Two harmless acts, placed together to create a third harmless act
That wasn't his argument. It was about legality. I.e. that two legal acts placed together should create a third legal act. Even from the principle that harmless acts should be legal, the fact that your statement assumes the third act is harmless makes the legality and harmfulness of the first two acts irrelevant (there is no logical connection). Perhaps you wish to state that two harmless acts placed together always create a third harmless act?
I think the AC's point still stands. She told the choir she was gay by joining. They could have set up their own choir web page listing the members and her father could have found it with a Google search on his daughter.
The mundane story is that the internet makes communication more effective. It's somewhat a lame move by Facebook to prioritise their information gathering over controls most users probably want, but the easy propagation of information is modern reality and not the responsibility of Facebook. When it comes to things like governments trying to control file sharing through technological means the general consensus is against it. Here it's not even the government but a private business. Perhaps here the solution is also for society to naturally adapt.
Correction: only friends can add you to groups but you cannot stop them, only leave when you receive the notification. I thought I saw this setting somewhere but it's either gone or more likely I confused it with another setting.
I guess this system does a lot to encourage group membership. In the same way people wouldn't bother joining they won't bother leaving. Hence Facebook gains a valuable/insidious source of user data typing.
There is a privacy setting so you can't be added to groups without your permission which undercuts the claim that they were 'sophisticated users'. To be fair I think Facebook set this to false by default when they added the feature.
This is half a social problem, there are no 'robust privacy controls' for that. The girl was exposed by her friend essentially tagging her as gay. A similar thing could happen if one of her friend's mispoke while at her house in hearing of her father. Perhaps then we could blame the lock on the loungeroom door?
Precisely. OO arose because the increasing size of programming projects necessitated more focus on top-level design than low-level efficiency. C probably is the correct choice for the Linux kernel but the reasons don't make C++ programmers worse, it's a different tool for a different job.
In fact the opposite argument can apply. I work with a large backend of reasonably well-designed C code which, when it requires maintenance, is so littered with details that the top-level design is actually difficult to determine.
I suspect your parent is going for a joke as your grammar was unclear. Compare
* all mainstream OSes (other than yours, BSD, Solaris, OSX [and] Windows)
* all mainstream OSes other than yours (i.e. BSD, Solaris, OSX [and] Windows)
To which is the standard reply: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
It would be more akin to your hobby being sitting around doing nothing. Perhaps 'chilling out' is legitimately a hobby, perhaps it's just sitting around.
Atheism is a religion in the sense that it is a set of beliefs concerning the supernatural. It's not a religion in the usual sense of a positive set of beliefs.
Really it doesn't matter, you can't argue by label. There are some religious people who think classifying it as a religion somehow lends weight to the arguments for their particular religion. It may do so slightly only in ascribing faith. There are some atheists who think the opposite, that their position is somehow strengthened because they are separate. Everyone thinks their beliefs are sensible.
Do I think it should be illegal to go into a mosque and loudly, grossly defame the Islamic belief and culture. Yes.
That would be illegal more for public disturbance than for being offensive.
I think the difference with religion is that it is locally offensive. The Communications Act uses the phrases "grossly offensive", "obscene" and "indecent". To me this suggests something that is commonly held, by that old stalwart 'reasonable persons', to be offensive. Whether criticism of a religion is obscene, or whether obscenity becomes legal because it is done under the name of free speech, really just shows that our principles are unclear and in constant conflict at the edges.
That is clearly a different sense of the word "offensive".
There has always been this tension between public and private behaviour. Generally behaviour and speech that would be illegal in public is commonplace in private. Facebook (in fact the entire internet) blurs the line between public publishing and private conversation. The Communications Act does not reflect the reality of modern technology (despite being of recent origin) although to be fair we are in a transition period as social mores develop to accomodate this.
Yes, in a lift you are a non-owner passenger, but I suspect legally ownership of a vehicle is a non-issue. The driver is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is roadworthy, not the owner (although I'm sure that varies by region).
For a self-driving car you are an operator, not a driver, although legally it may be the same. But in a self-driving car the operator is very close to being a passive passenger. Even if they have to take responsibility as the operator, any flawed decision by the software is going to be akin to a tyre blowout or brake cable snap - if they were reasonably maintained the driver is not at fault. Possibly even less so in the case of software as it would be considered a design fault rather than a random material failure.
This is why I still think the lift analogy stands. The law if full of contradictory principles, so legally there may be different responsibilities imputed to building owners and car owners, but if lift software makes the lift fall a floor, that's going to come back to the lift company, and similarly for car software. Were the drivers of the sticking Toyota accelerator held responsible?*
*assuming it was clear the fault was the electronic throttle
Cross-communication would open up opportunites to reduce congestion and efficiently route traffic. Would be slightly annoying when you see you have been chosen to take the long way though.
The overall experience is still part of driving. Being in control (i.e. the driver) is comforting and that's what makes us ignore statistics, like shark attacks vs crossing the road*.
Of great interest would be culpability in the event of two self-driving cars crashing. If you treat them as decision makers, like a human driver, then who gets the fine/gaol-time when it decides to turn in front of an oncoming car? Technically everyone is a passenger. Is it the owner's fault for choosing that model of software? The company's? Will the software have to be open source so it can be investigated?
it just goes to show that ALL the community cares about is "free as in beer"
You have this the wrong way around. People don't dislike Ubuntu showing ads because it costs users money (it doesn't, except very indirectly) or because it provides money for Canonical. They dislike it because ads introduce corporate corruption into their OS. Users can no longer trust the motivation behind the product and therefore the product itself. This is "free as in speech".
For the record, the story is misguided. They're not ads, they're search results. If you were a keen model train enthusiast you could theoretically add the search for whichever website is appropriate for that (in the future, I think it's hard-coded to Amazon right now). That said, I have no interest in seeing external results when I search my computer. That level of integration is over-reaching.
Some interesting points. I think you understand all this, but remember inflation is not solely, or even primarily, caused by governments printing money. In a fractional reserve system the money supply is amplified by debt. More importantly inflation represents the population's mistrust in the currency. The less they trust the system the more notes they'll want to give up their loaf of bread. This leads to the next point;
the government wants to stop people from saving their purchasing power
No, the government wants to maintain trust in the currency. They know that if the mistrust continues people will shift to other currencies, or in extreme cases, bartering, and then your country is either at the financial mercy of another country or has lost the fluidity that a common currency brings. Therefore they are attempting to ban the use of other currencies to keep the peso established.
Printing money itself is another attempt to do this, and seeks to take advantage of the time gap between more money appearing and people realising that more money has appeared. I.e. hoping to stimulate before the inflation is apparent. History is full of cases, including Argentina, where this didn't work. I don't know what the solution should be or if this ever works (makes for a boring news story).
The majority of the girls with whom I spent my adolescence with in church would say, "I don't feel led to date you"
I think this is heavily dependent on the type of church as to how much 'spiritual direction' is required for these decisions, unless they were just looking for an easy let-down.
The one advantage you have as a male is that churches tend to be over-represented by females. To be a little cynical, as you, and they, age girls will become more pragmatic and less prone to romanticising relationships. Guys perhaps suffer less from this early on as promiscuity can be emotional, not just sexual, although that could be a form of romanticism. Honestly I dont' know, I've never understood people:)
It's interesting to note the difference between yelling fire in a crowded theatre and baiting the religious.
Most people would ascribe responsibility for the panic in the theatre to the yeller because they believe the fear of fire in an enclosed space to be reasonable. It seems to me that most people here unwilling to pass judgment on the filmmakers take this position because they believe the religious belief to be unreasonable.
Yet in both cases somebody has used their knowledge of a group to provoke a particular behaviour.
Perhaps this has roots in socialisation - if a group sees a member with a quirk it will often bait or aggrevate that quirk in an attempt to eliminate it.
Your point is clear, but how do intention and knowledge interact, especially given that intention has no bearing on the result?
* intention a: I want to effect political change by publicly exposing corruption within communism
* intention b: I want to incite communists to kill me
* knowledge c: I know that if I publicly expose corruption the communists will kill me.
* knowledge d: I mistakenly believe that if I publicly expose corruption the communists will not kill me.
a + c: I do it anyway, am I responsible for my own death?
b + d: They actually do kill me, am I responsible?
There's something very enticing about the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's an appeal to an ideal but as a fallacy it is overused. Definitions are fluid, but definitions do exist and things fall inside and outside of them. Self-identification is mostly useless for this. For example we might want to agree upon what consitutes an environmentalist. Al Gore may self-identify, but given that he consumes 100x the energy of the average westerner can we, for the purpose of some discussion, consider that he really holds to the core ideals of environmentalism?
Note the case of the Scotsman seems to be cut and dried - you are either a Scottish male national or you aren't - but the fallacy is an attempt to claim that all Scottish male nationals have a superior sense of honour or, perhaps less extremely, that there is a Scottish cultural trend in this direction. In this way the fallacy is almost a strawman because it sets up the speaker to generalise to an absolute cultural position and cuts it down using a technical definition.
For the case of many religions, however, your validity as a Muslim, Christian, Jew etc. is adjudicated by an omniscient being. In this frame of reference there really is such a thing as a false Muslim, and it will be absolutely revealed when they die*.
This is why it makes sense for Muslims to analyse others as to whether they are actually 'true' Muslims. If we are outside the frame of reference of Islam we are asking a different question. This question is usually sociological and along the lines of "What are the results of all the people associated with the belief called Islam?" If you wanted to be truly scientific you would have to define that belief very carefully. Allowing it to be defined by the self-identification of 1.5 billion people is not very clear.
* This is the only point I wished to make in the reply, before geting carried away.
After all, Joe Sixpack has opinions as well, and he'd be inclined to share them on YouTube, right?
Yep. One of the best things about the internet is that it exposes you to a more representative cross-section of society. Without it you exist in your own circle of people with roughly the same level of intelligence, same political leanings and social mores as you.
One of the worst things about the internet is [see previous point]. Man it's depressing.
Spam filtering works mostly because it is text. Perhaps similar AI could be applied to images but I suspect they look more like noise. Already some pages detect adblocking by using JS to parse the DOM tree to find where the ads should be. A smart blocker could attempt to lie to the JS however it's not hard to imagine this causing page problems if the JS makes layout choices based on it. You'd be trying to keep two copies; one for rendering and one for tricking the JS (that only needs tricking partially, not for actual site content).
If advertisers and sites ever develop enough trust we'll see ads served from the domain of the site, and potentially randomised element/image tags for both advertising and non-advertising content, making black and white lists difficult.
Unfortunately, the answer is probably, "No, because browsers are made by advertisers or by people who are in bed with advertisers."
Spot on, and exactly why I prefer Firefox over Chrome. You can't beat the sense that Mozilla is working for you, not for what you can give it. I know they receive money from Google, but it's more like playing footsies under the table than being in bed with them.
The real answer is not to politely ask these companies to stop tracking us; what reason do they have to care about our wishes? The real answer is to make ABP a standard feature in browsers
I suspect a better solution is to tighten privacy laws to make extensive tracking illegal.
I'm a huge fan of ABP but I think it only works while it's a minority use case. If it gains widespread usage it will spark a programming arms race that we are unlikely to win.
Slashdot Mirror
as soon as you drop the idea that you have the right not to be presented with a view of the world that makes you happy at the expense of other people's freedom
Like Carlin's argument this is simply a nice-sounding sound bite with no foundation. U.S. culture tends to idealise and reify freedom which leads to the supposed principle that freedom trumps all, but you have to step back and ask what is the point of freedom? Once that's established, you can then ask, are there situations where prioritising freedom actually works against that point?
Loosely the point of any ethical principle is the avoidance of harm. Protecting freedom gives a society that minimises, at least, some forms of government and individual harm. As an example of where freedom can be abused, consider exposing yourself, or having sex in front of, a young child every day. Clearly this will cause harm. Similarly, repeated application of freedom of speech, say following a Muslim around trying to discuss anti-Islam literature, probably crosses the line over to bullying.
The issue is that humans are limited and have to exist in public. This means there are times they cannot just 'turn away'. Even though there is probably nothing everyone agrees upon there are some commonalities between us that can be generalised enough to make this a rule. Not having sex in public is usually one of them.
Carlin's argument is flawless. Two harmless acts, placed together to create a third harmless act
That wasn't his argument. It was about legality. I.e. that two legal acts placed together should create a third legal act. Even from the principle that harmless acts should be legal, the fact that your statement assumes the third act is harmless makes the legality and harmfulness of the first two acts irrelevant (there is no logical connection). Perhaps you wish to state that two harmless acts placed together always create a third harmless act?
I think the AC's point still stands. She told the choir she was gay by joining. They could have set up their own choir web page listing the members and her father could have found it with a Google search on his daughter.
The mundane story is that the internet makes communication more effective. It's somewhat a lame move by Facebook to prioritise their information gathering over controls most users probably want, but the easy propagation of information is modern reality and not the responsibility of Facebook. When it comes to things like governments trying to control file sharing through technological means the general consensus is against it. Here it's not even the government but a private business. Perhaps here the solution is also for society to naturally adapt.
Correction: only friends can add you to groups but you cannot stop them, only leave when you receive the notification. I thought I saw this setting somewhere but it's either gone or more likely I confused it with another setting.
I guess this system does a lot to encourage group membership. In the same way people wouldn't bother joining they won't bother leaving. Hence Facebook gains a valuable/insidious source of user data typing.
There is a privacy setting so you can't be added to groups without your permission which undercuts the claim that they were 'sophisticated users'. To be fair I think Facebook set this to false by default when they added the feature.
This is half a social problem, there are no 'robust privacy controls' for that. The girl was exposed by her friend essentially tagging her as gay. A similar thing could happen if one of her friend's mispoke while at her house in hearing of her father. Perhaps then we could blame the lock on the loungeroom door?
Precisely. OO arose because the increasing size of programming projects necessitated more focus on top-level design than low-level efficiency. C probably is the correct choice for the Linux kernel but the reasons don't make C++ programmers worse, it's a different tool for a different job.
In fact the opposite argument can apply. I work with a large backend of reasonably well-designed C code which, when it requires maintenance, is so littered with details that the top-level design is actually difficult to determine.
I suspect your parent is going for a joke as your grammar was unclear. Compare
* all mainstream OSes (other than yours, BSD, Solaris, OSX [and] Windows)
* all mainstream OSes other than yours (i.e. BSD, Solaris, OSX [and] Windows)
To which is the standard reply: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
It would be more akin to your hobby being sitting around doing nothing. Perhaps 'chilling out' is legitimately a hobby, perhaps it's just sitting around.
Atheism is a religion in the sense that it is a set of beliefs concerning the supernatural. It's not a religion in the usual sense of a positive set of beliefs.
Really it doesn't matter, you can't argue by label. There are some religious people who think classifying it as a religion somehow lends weight to the arguments for their particular religion. It may do so slightly only in ascribing faith. There are some atheists who think the opposite, that their position is somehow strengthened because they are separate. Everyone thinks their beliefs are sensible.
Do I think it should be illegal to go into a mosque and loudly, grossly defame the Islamic belief and culture. Yes.
That would be illegal more for public disturbance than for being offensive.
I think the difference with religion is that it is locally offensive. The Communications Act uses the phrases "grossly offensive", "obscene" and "indecent". To me this suggests something that is commonly held, by that old stalwart 'reasonable persons', to be offensive. Whether criticism of a religion is obscene, or whether obscenity becomes legal because it is done under the name of free speech, really just shows that our principles are unclear and in constant conflict at the edges.
That is clearly a different sense of the word "offensive".
There has always been this tension between public and private behaviour. Generally behaviour and speech that would be illegal in public is commonplace in private. Facebook (in fact the entire internet) blurs the line between public publishing and private conversation. The Communications Act does not reflect the reality of modern technology (despite being of recent origin) although to be fair we are in a transition period as social mores develop to accomodate this.
Well, as insightful as you appear to be, I have perused your posting history, Mr Anonymous Coward, and you have far more serious problems.
Yes, in a lift you are a non-owner passenger, but I suspect legally ownership of a vehicle is a non-issue. The driver is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is roadworthy, not the owner (although I'm sure that varies by region).
For a self-driving car you are an operator, not a driver, although legally it may be the same. But in a self-driving car the operator is very close to being a passive passenger. Even if they have to take responsibility as the operator, any flawed decision by the software is going to be akin to a tyre blowout or brake cable snap - if they were reasonably maintained the driver is not at fault. Possibly even less so in the case of software as it would be considered a design fault rather than a random material failure.
This is why I still think the lift analogy stands. The law if full of contradictory principles, so legally there may be different responsibilities imputed to building owners and car owners, but if lift software makes the lift fall a floor, that's going to come back to the lift company, and similarly for car software. Were the drivers of the sticking Toyota accelerator held responsible?*
*assuming it was clear the fault was the electronic throttle
Cross-communication would open up opportunites to reduce congestion and efficiently route traffic. Would be slightly annoying when you see you have been chosen to take the long way though.
Much like choosing the floor at which the lift will stop makes you responsible for any of its software failures?
The overall experience is still part of driving. Being in control (i.e. the driver) is comforting and that's what makes us ignore statistics, like shark attacks vs crossing the road*.
Of great interest would be culpability in the event of two self-driving cars crashing. If you treat them as decision makers, like a human driver, then who gets the fine/gaol-time when it decides to turn in front of an oncoming car? Technically everyone is a passenger. Is it the owner's fault for choosing that model of software? The company's? Will the software have to be open source so it can be investigated?
* The basis for this one is never clearly shown.
it just goes to show that ALL the community cares about is "free as in beer"
You have this the wrong way around. People don't dislike Ubuntu showing ads because it costs users money (it doesn't, except very indirectly) or because it provides money for Canonical. They dislike it because ads introduce corporate corruption into their OS. Users can no longer trust the motivation behind the product and therefore the product itself. This is "free as in speech".
For the record, the story is misguided. They're not ads, they're search results. If you were a keen model train enthusiast you could theoretically add the search for whichever website is appropriate for that (in the future, I think it's hard-coded to Amazon right now). That said, I have no interest in seeing external results when I search my computer. That level of integration is over-reaching.
Switzerland is slightly different because people own guns to protect themselves from foreign invaders, not from their fellow citizens.
But this still supports the idea that it's not guns per se, but culture. That's right, guns are fine, but you all suck.
Seriously though, it could be an argument that until U.S. society is stable enough to handle guns* they should not be so prolific.
* I don't mean this in a belittling way, all societies have their problem areas.
The undo burden is having to contact Facebook and ask them to reactivate your account.
Some interesting points. I think you understand all this, but remember inflation is not solely, or even primarily, caused by governments printing money. In a fractional reserve system the money supply is amplified by debt. More importantly inflation represents the population's mistrust in the currency. The less they trust the system the more notes they'll want to give up their loaf of bread. This leads to the next point;
the government wants to stop people from saving their purchasing power
No, the government wants to maintain trust in the currency. They know that if the mistrust continues people will shift to other currencies, or in extreme cases, bartering, and then your country is either at the financial mercy of another country or has lost the fluidity that a common currency brings. Therefore they are attempting to ban the use of other currencies to keep the peso established.
Printing money itself is another attempt to do this, and seeks to take advantage of the time gap between more money appearing and people realising that more money has appeared. I.e. hoping to stimulate before the inflation is apparent. History is full of cases, including Argentina, where this didn't work. I don't know what the solution should be or if this ever works (makes for a boring news story).
The majority of the girls with whom I spent my adolescence with in church would say, "I don't feel led to date you"
I think this is heavily dependent on the type of church as to how much 'spiritual direction' is required for these decisions, unless they were just looking for an easy let-down.
The one advantage you have as a male is that churches tend to be over-represented by females. To be a little cynical, as you, and they, age girls will become more pragmatic and less prone to romanticising relationships. Guys perhaps suffer less from this early on as promiscuity can be emotional, not just sexual, although that could be a form of romanticism. Honestly I dont' know, I've never understood people :)
It's interesting to note the difference between yelling fire in a crowded theatre and baiting the religious.
Most people would ascribe responsibility for the panic in the theatre to the yeller because they believe the fear of fire in an enclosed space to be reasonable. It seems to me that most people here unwilling to pass judgment on the filmmakers take this position because they believe the religious belief to be unreasonable.
Yet in both cases somebody has used their knowledge of a group to provoke a particular behaviour.
Perhaps this has roots in socialisation - if a group sees a member with a quirk it will often bait or aggrevate that quirk in an attempt to eliminate it.
Your point is clear, but how do intention and knowledge interact, especially given that intention has no bearing on the result?
* intention a: I want to effect political change by publicly exposing corruption within communism
* intention b: I want to incite communists to kill me
* knowledge c: I know that if I publicly expose corruption the communists will kill me.
* knowledge d: I mistakenly believe that if I publicly expose corruption the communists will not kill me.
a + c: I do it anyway, am I responsible for my own death?
b + d: They actually do kill me, am I responsible?
a and b + c: ?
There's something very enticing about the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's an appeal to an ideal but as a fallacy it is overused. Definitions are fluid, but definitions do exist and things fall inside and outside of them. Self-identification is mostly useless for this. For example we might want to agree upon what consitutes an environmentalist. Al Gore may self-identify, but given that he consumes 100x the energy of the average westerner can we, for the purpose of some discussion, consider that he really holds to the core ideals of environmentalism?
Note the case of the Scotsman seems to be cut and dried - you are either a Scottish male national or you aren't - but the fallacy is an attempt to claim that all Scottish male nationals have a superior sense of honour or, perhaps less extremely, that there is a Scottish cultural trend in this direction. In this way the fallacy is almost a strawman because it sets up the speaker to generalise to an absolute cultural position and cuts it down using a technical definition.
For the case of many religions, however, your validity as a Muslim, Christian, Jew etc. is adjudicated by an omniscient being. In this frame of reference there really is such a thing as a false Muslim, and it will be absolutely revealed when they die*.
This is why it makes sense for Muslims to analyse others as to whether they are actually 'true' Muslims. If we are outside the frame of reference of Islam we are asking a different question. This question is usually sociological and along the lines of "What are the results of all the people associated with the belief called Islam?" If you wanted to be truly scientific you would have to define that belief very carefully. Allowing it to be defined by the self-identification of 1.5 billion people is not very clear.
* This is the only point I wished to make in the reply, before geting carried away.
After all, Joe Sixpack has opinions as well, and he'd be inclined to share them on YouTube, right?
Yep. One of the best things about the internet is that it exposes you to a more representative cross-section of society. Without it you exist in your own circle of people with roughly the same level of intelligence, same political leanings and social mores as you.
One of the worst things about the internet is [see previous point]. Man it's depressing.
Spam filtering works mostly because it is text. Perhaps similar AI could be applied to images but I suspect they look more like noise. Already some pages detect adblocking by using JS to parse the DOM tree to find where the ads should be. A smart blocker could attempt to lie to the JS however it's not hard to imagine this causing page problems if the JS makes layout choices based on it. You'd be trying to keep two copies; one for rendering and one for tricking the JS (that only needs tricking partially, not for actual site content).
If advertisers and sites ever develop enough trust we'll see ads served from the domain of the site, and potentially randomised element/image tags for both advertising and non-advertising content, making black and white lists difficult.
Unfortunately, the answer is probably, "No, because browsers are made by advertisers or by people who are in bed with advertisers."
Spot on, and exactly why I prefer Firefox over Chrome. You can't beat the sense that Mozilla is working for you, not for what you can give it. I know they receive money from Google, but it's more like playing footsies under the table than being in bed with them.
The real answer is not to politely ask these companies to stop tracking us; what reason do they have to care about our wishes? The real answer is to make ABP a standard feature in browsers
I suspect a better solution is to tighten privacy laws to make extensive tracking illegal.
I'm a huge fan of ABP but I think it only works while it's a minority use case. If it gains widespread usage it will spark a programming arms race that we are unlikely to win.