I think the relationship is kinda the other way around - you'll feel like your hobby is "serious" when you stop having fun with it.
303 karma · joined October 28, 2010
I think the relationship is kinda the other way around - you'll feel like your hobby is "serious" when you stop having fun with it.
In my mind the metaphor is more like "instead of having paparazzi at your door following around, you show everyone a card saying that you like dogs and video games and the steelers, and you tend to shop at big box stores out of town".
I'd rather know exactly what I'm presenting, which is possible in this model, than have the paparazzi all over me figuring most of it out imperfectly anyway.
I don't know a huge amount about the wider ecosystem here, but I can imagine that if chrome were to disable third-party cookies without providing an alternative, then advertisers will go to fairly great lengths to fingerprint you to build a profile.
Right now my guess is that Firefox users benefit from the fact that it's probably not worth investing all that much in alternative tracking techniques since you capture the vast majority of people with techniques which work in chromium browsers.
Again, I really don't know that much about all this, but my feeling is that this is moving in the right direction, even if it's not the solution I'd ultimately prefer as an individual user.
*If* this lets chrome remove third-party cookies, doesn't it effectively increase your privacy by putting that tracking data on the user's machine instead of having random third-parties involved in every page load to harvest that tracking info?
I understand that you can currently turn off third-party cookies, but a bunch of the internet breaks if you do that. If chrome is able to turn off third-party cookies for a large swathe of people, I expect that most sites will be forced to make themselves work without third-party cookies.
I don't know a huge amount about it, but naively I'd rather have my machine present this kind of data than have a network of unknown third-parties collaborate by sharing bits about me to build a profile.
Densification allows you to reduce car dependence, and most city noise is from cars.
J&J is liable for the full liabilities of the new child company.
The child exists to make sure a pool of at least its current assets exists to split between all claimants. If they’re found to be liable for more than that, then J&J will be liable for it and, if they can’t service that liability, they will have to declare bankruptancy.
If it costs $40 to acquire a new customer, and you expect a customer to stick around for long enough to spend $90 then it's totally worth doing that, but you need $40 now to make 90$ over some period of time.
So much USA urban and suburban land use is dedicated to cars. Massive wide stroads, enormous car parks etc.
It makes it so difficult to get anywhere without a motor vehicle, and it means there's way more cars on the road than there needs to be because lots of people just can't realistically do basic tasks without driving.
Why should the majority be beholden to the political view of the minority because of the geographic distribution of the minority?
There’s no need to blow up your science experiment until it’s actually a danger, even if you’re certain it will soon become a danger.
We've been indoctrinated into motonormative thinking because most of us have lived our entire lives surrounded by cars.
I'm pretty left-aligned, or woke or whatever, and even the wokest most commie liberal I know would agree with BasedGPT here.
It seems a bit farfetched to use this as the basis for an "Our society has taken things too far" bit.
In CPU-land this is done by manufacturers already - they manufacture many of the same generation of processor as the most performant version, and then test the individual items produced, disabling poorly constructed parts and downgrading the specification as they do it until they're left with a range of products at various performance points.
The incremental cost of keeping a gas generator working is very close to zero compared to all the other expenses involved in building the plant and buying gas to burn in it. We can keep all our gas infrastructure around and simply use it less often if we have more wind.
The same argument applies to children of course - where do you put your helmet after you've cycled to school? Attach it to the bike loosely and someone will steal it, it's too big to carry in your rucksack all day, and you don't want to have to go back and forth to your locker potentially on the other side of school if you have one at all.
IMO they're struggling to open and maintain enough lasting attractions and park atmosphere areas in the existing parks, and they're making lots of money from inflating queue times and sending people to the shops so I don't really see what they'll do.
Those are both concrete, measurable goals