>"Did Verizon even give CA first responders an option that prevented throttling in that case?"
THAT is the real question. It is stupid and silly for the agencies to complain that they bought a plan with X GB then throttling.... and THEN complained about the throttling, done exactly as stated in the contract. THAT WAS THE PLAN THEY BOUGHT. And if the government worker(s) entered into that very, very industry-standard agreement without understanding it, then they are very, very incompetent.
If you can't handle throttling, then:
1) Get a plan with X GB and then it charges per MB. Or 2) Get a plan that is 100% metered.
Now, if none of the suitable carriers have such a plan AND are unwilling to create such a plan for emergency agencies (which seems unlikely), THEN perhaps the FCC should step in.
>"I would tend to support prohibitions on throttling for any emergency service and recovery personnel"
I wouldn't. Not if they bought a plan that does throttling. I fail to understand the public outrage that an agency bought a plan of X GB and then throttling and then got upset about it. If that is not an appropriate plan for emergency service workers, then it should not be what they purchased.
It would be like entering a fire truck rental agreement that could go 100 miles a week and would would not start after that or would run at half speed after a week. Then yelling and crying when you go over 100 miles in a week. Duh.
>"Why not focus on the real problems that will have a real effect?"
Because the "left" is typically more interested in "feelings" than in facts. They want to feel like what they are doing makes a difference, while ignoring the cost and impact of such changes (like everything costing more, inferior experiences, few actual benefits, and unintended consequences). It is no different than illogical extreme gun control where the facts show most of it doesn't work and usually makes the problems FAR WORSE, but this is ignored because we have to "do something" [to feel better].
Keep in mind, I say this as someone who STRONGLY supports recycling and reduction of unnecessary waste, and even SENSIBLE changes to green/friendly alternatives when they are actually just as good and at least nearly the same cost. Hint- paper straws are nowhere near as good as plastic.
>"If these biodegradable straws were less expensive to produce, we'd already be doing that"
Possibly. But not if they are annoying inferior. And that is exactly what non-plastic straws have been (from what I have seen).... Woefully inferior. Not enough strength to insert through a lid, horrible mouth feel, sticky, limited use life (like when you set your drink down for a few hours), leak prone, etc.
I am certainly not opposed to having alternatives available, even if they are less ideal and more expensive... but REQUIRING them is where my problem begins. It is especially silly with the obsession on straws, when my Chic-Fil-A wrap is encased in a stupid, unnecessary, large, non-recyclable plastic bubble container that uses about 500 times more plastic than a straw. The salad container- THAT I understand (although why not use #1 or #2 plastic so I can recycle it).
>"We need to find a way to keep vaping devices away from pre-18ers. Maybe move to a prescription model. But that might mean less harm reduction for smokers. It is a difficult issue."
It isn't that difficult. We already have laws on the book, they just need reasonable enforcement... it is no different than alcohol or actual tobacco products. Retailers just need to check ID's for age. It really is that simple. We don't have or need a "prescription model" for alcohol either (and alcohol is responsible for FAR FAR FAR more third-party deaths than tobacco). And we shouldn't be recording that information (like SCANNING and storing ID information) because it could be severely abused.
We don't want to make it more difficult for adult tobacco users to get into [switch to] vaping- it is a zillion times less harmful, as well as FAR less annoying. The main problem with the article is they are are using obscure technical terminology of classifying vaping as "tobacco", and it is certainly not (in any real sense that matters). It is no more "tobacco" than nicotine gum, lozenges, or patches (it doesn't really matter if the nicotine in the product is synthetic or plant derived). They are intentionally trying to skew and distort the terminology to make it sound like there is an epidemic of young vaping LEADING TO ACTUAL TOBACCO USE. And that sensationalist conclusion is absolutely, 100% FALSE, and can and will do LOTS OF HARM to society if such nonsense is believed.
Ask 10 people to read that "shocking" headline or skim the article, and I bet 9 of the 10 will come away with a false impression.
As an aside for those who do defeat ID checking through bad retailers or straw purchases- Young people are going to experiment with stuff, regardless of what we do. Much better if they experiment with vaping and never go further. So far there is NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT ANY significant number of young vapors ever move onto actual tobacco products.
>"Here the government puts in resources to compete with a market activity - even if they completely hate the product"
Another way to solve that is for the government agencies to pay COMMERCIAL companies to develop the FOSS code that is needed. Then the tax money of the people is not used against the commercial sector. It supports it AND provides FOSS code that reduces later costs and provides options to other government entities AND the public, which lowers taxes and provides more services. It also prevents lock-in AND allows for more companies to provide support AND supports open standards AND supports transparency. To me this seems like a win-win-win-win-win situation.
>"... you have a piece of software that doesn't work. You call in the highly expensive support from the vendor and they won't be able to do much more than shrug at it. It's something I have seen at large companies and very large vendors.""
THIS
I can attest that "support" by major proprietary software companies is just as hit-or-miss as it is in the FOSS world. There is support that is great, and support that is expensive as hell and yet practically useless. So it is hard to generalize.
One of the best models yet is the RedHat one- which is why they have been so successful. It is FOSS, so MORE THAN ONE ENTITY can actually support it- the main one, additional ones, freelance people, and your own staff. This is almost impossible with proprietary systems. It is like having the best of all worlds- multiple support options, free use options, good free support options, good paid support options, very little "lock-in", less forced upgrades, ability to see code, ability to extend, ability to share.
I was responding in context to a post about so-called hate speech videos on YouTube and his comparing that to "swinging a fist in my face". Those are obviously not comparable.
You are correct about inciting of violence against individuals, but that goes beyond "hate speech". Stating your opinions on something or supporting certain legislation is not inciting violence... yet the "left" would often label those as "hate speech".
So in that regard, I am correct. You can't have "hate speech" banned and still have free speech [as we know it in the USA]. The USA doesn't have "hate speech laws". So please take your apparently "educated" self to WikiPedia for a moment before blasting others with curse words (or it is hate speech?):
"The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[8] There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.[97][not in citation given]"
By the way, I love how you tout my name in your reply subject (and with the insult and curse word) as if you are going to punish or embarrass me from your high moral ground, while hiding behind anonymity. Great job.
>"They aren't preaching from the moral high ground."
Indeed not. But the real issue is that they shouldn't be preaching AT ALL. This whole political/social justice thing with companies is ridiculous. I am guessing that most people, like me, want to buy products based on the PRODUCT. How the product works, its price, customer service, reliability, accuracy, features, warranty, etc. I don't want to have to analyze each product to see if the company who made it is in support or not of my personal political stances, feelings, or whatever. It is a BAD IDEA for companies to get political this way. For every customer they think they are going to get, they are likely to lose another one, if not more.
If they MUST take some stance on something, then let it be THEIR OWN PRACTICES- like using renewable energy, or recyclable components, or cruelty-free testing, etc THEMSELVES. For example, Levi's jeans has NOTHING to do with so-called "gun safety" alignment. But they might have something to do with using environmentally friendly dyes. So instead of positioning something positive about their product that could encourage their selection, they have instead lost my (and perhaps millions of others') potential purchases forever... just like Gillette might have done.
>"saw an idea being discussed at some point: the ballot would have a couple a questions related to the item being voted"
I haven't seen such a proposal before, but have often wondered about something just like that. If you can't at least perform some EXTREMELY basic relevant function, like perhaps naming the candidates, then what exact valid criteria is being used to choose who to vote for? For example, when I vote, if there is a referendum that I didn't know about and didn't really understand, I simply refrain from voting on that.... it seems the responsible thing to do.
>"Now if i was an insurance company, i would call the insurance void for any car with rooted software."
I agree that it is way dangerous to just "root" a car and start changing stuff. But what if it were a professional tuning/mod company who does it for a living and spends a lot of time, money, and effort making specific, tested changes that are even independently reviewed/certified? I could envision "Private Car Inc" or something where they offer a mod that gives the user an on/off switch for privacy- something that stops location and driving behavior and occupant metrics storage and transmission of that data to anyone. In no way does that affect the safety of the car, it just gives the operator the ability to have privacy again.
Car manufacturers are not going to offer actual privacy on their own. All they are going to do is MAYBE "promise" not to misuse all that data they collect and store. And those promises are not only weak, can change at any moment, and are overridden by warrants and such, but such data can and will be leaked and stolen. The only true privacy is not to collect/store such data in the first place.
>"Motherboard individually reviewed more than 100 user-submitted posts in the Neighbors app between December 6 and February 5, and the majority of people reported as "suspicious" were people of color."
That is not evidence of "racism" as claimed by the article. It is mostly prejudice based on actual observed experience. Most would not deny that racism exists in society, but now so much of what is reported as "racism" is not. So much so that the word is starting to lose all meaning. "People of color" *do* commit vastly more crime per capita. That is absolute fact. Being more wary or suspicious might not seem fair, but it is not illogical, irrational, immoral, or racist.
Men commit far, far, far more crime than women. Being more wary of strange men checking out your house is not sexist. Again, it is justified prejudice.
I would absolutely expect such reporting by "Vice".
You could wear THIS monster: https://spectrum.ieee.org/imag... in order, under ideal conditions, to generate "millivolts":) I don't think that is going to work out for smart watches or most devices. Seems like just adding a solar element on the strap and bezel would work better in most cases. Still, kinda neat.
Maybe add that thermal stuff, plus solar, plus WiFi harvesting, plus a kinetic weight spinner and together it could give a 1/100th charge (and cost three times as much and weigh four times as much). I think I will just throw my wearable device on a wireless charger once a day for a short time.
>" What about video? That is just as bad, if not worse."
You can already do this in Firefox (blocking autoplay of ALL regular video, regardless of muted or not). And you can do it in many versions, including the current. But it requires a setting in about:config (Firefox is the only browser I know of so far that allows blocking autoplay of muted video, and no addon/plugin is needed):
Although it will break some sites (I find in practice it is a rare thing, though). The Firefox UI currently includes no way to set the first two of the above, you must use about:config.
Yes, there are some nasty ways around this that some bad sites could still use. To improve further, make sure to block the playing of animated GIF/PNG/WEBP, too (note there is no per-use control for this, unfortunately):
image.animation_mode;once (if you want to play it once only, no looping) or image.animation_mode;none (never play it at all)
>"If a cat lover...well, not sure what the benefit is there[...] what really do you get in return? Dogs give you unconditional love...not sure what you get out of a cat."
Seriously? Dogs give you their unconditional *subjugation*. So how much does that dog affection actually mean compared to the affection a cat gives when they do NOT give unconditional subjugation? I don't expect subjugation from my friends; there is nothing wrong with not expecting that from my pet. I have been around cats all my life- they absolutely provide companionship, amusement, and affection. They are soft, warm, clean, soothing, communicative/interactive, and interesting.
Dogs are generally far more destructive, expensive, loud, annoying, dangerous, and require much more food, grooming, energy, time, space, and have a shorter average lifespan. Yet cats require cleaning up hairballs and maintaining a cat box plus more intensive training to prevent scratching up the furniture.
Both cats and dogs make excellent pets- one is not necessarily BETTER than the other, they are DIFFERENT.
>"What about Safari, which uses webkit? It's the default browser on both macOS and iOS, and does not use Chromium."
Wake me up when it runs on even one of:
Linux desktops BSD desktops Android phones Oh, and MS-Windows (since dropped 7 YEARS ago)
Throwing out a closed-source, Apple-only product as an "alternative" is hardly the counter to the Chrome/Google monoculture.
I believe that Firefox is the ONLY open-source, multi-platform, non-chrome based browser left. And as a bonus, this only true alternative is fast, robust, provides far more customization and user control, community-based, and backed by an organization that cares about standards, security, privacy, and internet freedom.
So if you want to fight our rapid plunge into to the next dark-age/IE-rerun, then I suggest you install and use Firefox on whatever platform you use and encourage others to do the same.
It is absolutely SHOCKING to see some sites that are already becoming essentially Chrome-only as their rendering is partially broken in Firefox and their "solution" when you complain is to install Chrome. I never thought we would have to go through this s*** again. But here we are.
At least partially fake, if not mostly, because you are being connected to someone you didn't mean or want to call. Deception was involved. And then to have them record the call it is just icing on the cake.
30 cases in 26 days in a State of 7.4 million people is a state of emergency? And probably most of those people who got the measles were in a family who CHOSE not to be vaccinated? AND according to the WHO "In developed countries, death occurs in one to two cases out of every 1,000 (0.1â"0.2%)." I could see how it would be concerning, but "emergency" seems a bit steep.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Did Verizon even give CA first responders an option that prevented throttling in that case?"
THAT is the real question. It is stupid and silly for the agencies to complain that they bought a plan with X GB then throttling.... and THEN complained about the throttling, done exactly as stated in the contract. THAT WAS THE PLAN THEY BOUGHT. And if the government worker(s) entered into that very, very industry-standard agreement without understanding it, then they are very, very incompetent.
If you can't handle throttling, then:
1) Get a plan with X GB and then it charges per MB.
Or
2) Get a plan that is 100% metered.
Now, if none of the suitable carriers have such a plan AND are unwilling to create such a plan for emergency agencies (which seems unlikely), THEN perhaps the FCC should step in.
>"I would tend to support prohibitions on throttling for any emergency service and recovery personnel"
I wouldn't. Not if they bought a plan that does throttling. I fail to understand the public outrage that an agency bought a plan of X GB and then throttling and then got upset about it. If that is not an appropriate plan for emergency service workers, then it should not be what they purchased.
It would be like entering a fire truck rental agreement that could go 100 miles a week and would would not start after that or would run at half speed after a week. Then yelling and crying when you go over 100 miles in a week. Duh.
>"Why not focus on the real problems that will have a real effect?"
Because the "left" is typically more interested in "feelings" than in facts. They want to feel like what they are doing makes a difference, while ignoring the cost and impact of such changes (like everything costing more, inferior experiences, few actual benefits, and unintended consequences). It is no different than illogical extreme gun control where the facts show most of it doesn't work and usually makes the problems FAR WORSE, but this is ignored because we have to "do something" [to feel better].
Keep in mind, I say this as someone who STRONGLY supports recycling and reduction of unnecessary waste, and even SENSIBLE changes to green/friendly alternatives when they are actually just as good and at least nearly the same cost. Hint- paper straws are nowhere near as good as plastic.
>"Are are there alternative motives involved?"
You can bet there are
>"If these biodegradable straws were less expensive to produce, we'd already be doing that"
Possibly. But not if they are annoying inferior. And that is exactly what non-plastic straws have been (from what I have seen).... Woefully inferior. Not enough strength to insert through a lid, horrible mouth feel, sticky, limited use life (like when you set your drink down for a few hours), leak prone, etc.
I am certainly not opposed to having alternatives available, even if they are less ideal and more expensive... but REQUIRING them is where my problem begins. It is especially silly with the obsession on straws, when my Chic-Fil-A wrap is encased in a stupid, unnecessary, large, non-recyclable plastic bubble container that uses about 500 times more plastic than a straw. The salad container- THAT I understand (although why not use #1 or #2 plastic so I can recycle it).
>"We need to find a way to keep vaping devices away from pre-18ers. Maybe move to a prescription model. But that might mean less harm reduction for smokers. It is a difficult issue."
It isn't that difficult. We already have laws on the book, they just need reasonable enforcement... it is no different than alcohol or actual tobacco products. Retailers just need to check ID's for age. It really is that simple. We don't have or need a "prescription model" for alcohol either (and alcohol is responsible for FAR FAR FAR more third-party deaths than tobacco). And we shouldn't be recording that information (like SCANNING and storing ID information) because it could be severely abused.
We don't want to make it more difficult for adult tobacco users to get into [switch to] vaping- it is a zillion times less harmful, as well as FAR less annoying. The main problem with the article is they are are using obscure technical terminology of classifying vaping as "tobacco", and it is certainly not (in any real sense that matters). It is no more "tobacco" than nicotine gum, lozenges, or patches (it doesn't really matter if the nicotine in the product is synthetic or plant derived). They are intentionally trying to skew and distort the terminology to make it sound like there is an epidemic of young vaping LEADING TO ACTUAL TOBACCO USE. And that sensationalist conclusion is absolutely, 100% FALSE, and can and will do LOTS OF HARM to society if such nonsense is believed.
Ask 10 people to read that "shocking" headline or skim the article, and I bet 9 of the 10 will come away with a false impression.
As an aside for those who do defeat ID checking through bad retailers or straw purchases- Young people are going to experiment with stuff, regardless of what we do. Much better if they experiment with vaping and never go further. So far there is NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT ANY significant number of young vapors ever move onto actual tobacco products.
>"Here the government puts in resources to compete with a market activity - even if they completely hate the product"
Another way to solve that is for the government agencies to pay COMMERCIAL companies to develop the FOSS code that is needed. Then the tax money of the people is not used against the commercial sector. It supports it AND provides FOSS code that reduces later costs and provides options to other government entities AND the public, which lowers taxes and provides more services. It also prevents lock-in AND allows for more companies to provide support AND supports open standards AND supports transparency. To me this seems like a win-win-win-win-win situation.
>"... you have a piece of software that doesn't work. You call in the highly expensive support from the vendor and they won't be able to do much more than shrug at it. It's something I have seen at large companies and very large vendors.""
THIS
I can attest that "support" by major proprietary software companies is just as hit-or-miss as it is in the FOSS world. There is support that is great, and support that is expensive as hell and yet practically useless. So it is hard to generalize.
One of the best models yet is the RedHat one- which is why they have been so successful. It is FOSS, so MORE THAN ONE ENTITY can actually support it- the main one, additional ones, freelance people, and your own staff. This is almost impossible with proprietary systems. It is like having the best of all worlds- multiple support options, free use options, good free support options, good paid support options, very little "lock-in", less forced upgrades, ability to see code, ability to extend, ability to share.
>"No you aren't."
Um, yes I am.
I was responding in context to a post about so-called hate speech videos on YouTube and his comparing that to "swinging a fist in my face". Those are obviously not comparable.
You are correct about inciting of violence against individuals, but that goes beyond "hate speech". Stating your opinions on something or supporting certain legislation is not inciting violence... yet the "left" would often label those as "hate speech".
So in that regard, I am correct. You can't have "hate speech" banned and still have free speech [as we know it in the USA]. The USA doesn't have "hate speech laws". So please take your apparently "educated" self to WikiPedia for a moment before blasting others with curse words (or it is hate speech?):
"The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[8] There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.[97][not in citation given]"
By the way, I love how you tout my name in your reply subject (and with the insult and curse word) as if you are going to punish or embarrass me from your high moral ground, while hiding behind anonymity. Great job.
>"They aren't preaching from the moral high ground."
Indeed not. But the real issue is that they shouldn't be preaching AT ALL. This whole political/social justice thing with companies is ridiculous. I am guessing that most people, like me, want to buy products based on the PRODUCT. How the product works, its price, customer service, reliability, accuracy, features, warranty, etc. I don't want to have to analyze each product to see if the company who made it is in support or not of my personal political stances, feelings, or whatever. It is a BAD IDEA for companies to get political this way. For every customer they think they are going to get, they are likely to lose another one, if not more.
If they MUST take some stance on something, then let it be THEIR OWN PRACTICES- like using renewable energy, or recyclable components, or cruelty-free testing, etc THEMSELVES. For example, Levi's jeans has NOTHING to do with so-called "gun safety" alignment. But they might have something to do with using environmentally friendly dyes. So instead of positioning something positive about their product that could encourage their selection, they have instead lost my (and perhaps millions of others') potential purchases forever... just like Gillette might have done.
>"saw an idea being discussed at some point: the ballot would have a couple a questions related to the item being voted"
I haven't seen such a proposal before, but have often wondered about something just like that. If you can't at least perform some EXTREMELY basic relevant function, like perhaps naming the candidates, then what exact valid criteria is being used to choose who to vote for? For example, when I vote, if there is a referendum that I didn't know about and didn't really understand, I simply refrain from voting on that.... it seems the responsible thing to do.
It is a slippery slope, for sure...
>"It's not a difficult concept to get where freedom of expression rights begin and end - your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Speech [and video] doesn't swing fists at your nose. That is not a valid comparison. A better one is "Sticks and Stones..."
You can't have freedom of speech AND "hate speech" laws/rules. Pick one or the other (I am firmly for the former).
>"Now if i was an insurance company, i would call the insurance void for any car with rooted software."
I agree that it is way dangerous to just "root" a car and start changing stuff. But what if it were a professional tuning/mod company who does it for a living and spends a lot of time, money, and effort making specific, tested changes that are even independently reviewed/certified? I could envision "Private Car Inc" or something where they offer a mod that gives the user an on/off switch for privacy- something that stops location and driving behavior and occupant metrics storage and transmission of that data to anyone. In no way does that affect the safety of the car, it just gives the operator the ability to have privacy again.
Car manufacturers are not going to offer actual privacy on their own. All they are going to do is MAYBE "promise" not to misuse all that data they collect and store. And those promises are not only weak, can change at any moment, and are overridden by warrants and such, but such data can and will be leaked and stolen. The only true privacy is not to collect/store such data in the first place.
>"Prejudice means to form the opinion without pre-existing knowledge."
Of that exact individual. But we DO have plenty of knowledge, just not of that individual. That is what prejudice is- pre-judging.
>"Reason requires knowledge. Justifying an opinion requires reason. Ergo, prejudice can never be justified."
Wrong. Not only wrong, but crazy wrong. Humans would have died off as a species, instantly, otherwise.
>"Motherboard individually reviewed more than 100 user-submitted posts in the Neighbors app between December 6 and February 5, and the majority of people reported as "suspicious" were people of color."
That is not evidence of "racism" as claimed by the article. It is mostly prejudice based on actual observed experience. Most would not deny that racism exists in society, but now so much of what is reported as "racism" is not. So much so that the word is starting to lose all meaning. "People of color" *do* commit vastly more crime per capita. That is absolute fact. Being more wary or suspicious might not seem fair, but it is not illogical, irrational, immoral, or racist.
Men commit far, far, far more crime than women. Being more wary of strange men checking out your house is not sexist. Again, it is justified prejudice.
I would absolutely expect such reporting by "Vice".
You could wear THIS monster: https://spectrum.ieee.org/imag... in order, under ideal conditions, to generate "millivolts" :) I don't think that is going to work out for smart watches or most devices. Seems like just adding a solar element on the strap and bezel would work better in most cases. Still, kinda neat.
Maybe add that thermal stuff, plus solar, plus WiFi harvesting, plus a kinetic weight spinner and together it could give a 1/100th charge (and cost three times as much and weigh four times as much). I think I will just throw my wearable device on a wireless charger once a day for a short time.
>"Would you accept a flow like that?"
Maybe. Generally, I find video/audio/animated ads unacceptable and would rather see fixed ads with click for more info.
>"Video ads are the only way that a lot of sites can keep from going behind a paywall."
As long as the user can choose to play them or not. Autoplay is usually a hostile assault on the user.
>" What about video? That is just as bad, if not worse."
You can already do this in Firefox (blocking autoplay of ALL regular video, regardless of muted or not). And you can do it in many versions, including the current. But it requires a setting in about:config (Firefox is the only browser I know of so far that allows blocking autoplay of muted video, and no addon/plugin is needed):
media.autoplay.default=1
media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed=false
media.autoplay.allow-muted=false
Although it will break some sites (I find in practice it is a rare thing, though). The Firefox UI currently includes no way to set the first two of the above, you must use about:config.
Yes, there are some nasty ways around this that some bad sites could still use. To improve further, make sure to block the playing of animated GIF/PNG/WEBP, too (note there is no per-use control for this, unfortunately):
image.animation_mode;once (if you want to play it once only, no looping) or
image.animation_mode;none (never play it at all)
>"If a cat lover...well, not sure what the benefit is there[...] what really do you get in return? Dogs give you unconditional love...not sure what you get out of a cat."
Seriously? Dogs give you their unconditional *subjugation*. So how much does that dog affection actually mean compared to the affection a cat gives when they do NOT give unconditional subjugation? I don't expect subjugation from my friends; there is nothing wrong with not expecting that from my pet. I have been around cats all my life- they absolutely provide companionship, amusement, and affection. They are soft, warm, clean, soothing, communicative/interactive, and interesting.
Dogs are generally far more destructive, expensive, loud, annoying, dangerous, and require much more food, grooming, energy, time, space, and have a shorter average lifespan. Yet cats require cleaning up hairballs and maintaining a cat box plus more intensive training to prevent scratching up the furniture.
Both cats and dogs make excellent pets- one is not necessarily BETTER than the other, they are DIFFERENT.
>"What about Safari, which uses webkit? It's the default browser on both macOS and iOS, and does not use Chromium."
Wake me up when it runs on even one of:
Linux desktops
BSD desktops
Android phones
Oh, and MS-Windows (since dropped 7 YEARS ago)
Throwing out a closed-source, Apple-only product as an "alternative" is hardly the counter to the Chrome/Google monoculture.
I believe that Firefox is the ONLY open-source, multi-platform, non-chrome based browser left. And as a bonus, this only true alternative is fast, robust, provides far more customization and user control, community-based, and backed by an organization that cares about standards, security, privacy, and internet freedom.
So if you want to fight our rapid plunge into to the next dark-age/IE-rerun, then I suggest you install and use Firefox on whatever platform you use and encourage others to do the same.
It is absolutely SHOCKING to see some sites that are already becoming essentially Chrome-only as their rendering is partially broken in Firefox and their "solution" when you complain is to install Chrome. I never thought we would have to go through this s*** again. But here we are.
>"How is it fake if it connects to the business?"
At least partially fake, if not mostly, because you are being connected to someone you didn't mean or want to call. Deception was involved. And then to have them record the call it is just icing on the cake.
>"By connecting unique advertisements to unique phone numbers, Google can track how effective the ads are."
None of which requires RECORDING the conversation. That is MY problem with the concept.
>"it's a dummy Google number that will route you to the business -- after informing you that it will be recording anything you say."
At which point I would hang up and find some other business or listing. How ridiculous.
30 cases in 26 days in a State of 7.4 million people is a state of emergency? And probably most of those people who got the measles were in a family who CHOSE not to be vaccinated? AND according to the WHO "In developed countries, death occurs in one to two cases out of every 1,000 (0.1â"0.2%)." I could see how it would be concerning, but "emergency" seems a bit steep.