forward1

YouTube has over 2 billion active users.

uBlock origin has about 20 million, if we're being generous.

That's literally 1%. It is safe to assume no one at Google or elsewhere cares about our filters, certainly not enough to play a "cat and mouse game".

Turns out quality software is also popular. Imagine that!

Thanks for confirming your accusations are baseless and not rooted in any factual evidence.

It's directly related, perhaps you just struggle with comprehending the message?

Where does your entitlement come from? I bet working in tech too long.

What makes you think you're entitled to anything, let alone a "normal" life, in this world? No one forces you to live in and participate in society, but if you choose to, it's at your own risk.

Fun fact: humans are the only species that drinks milk directly from other species. We're also the only species which drinks milk past infancy. Don't worry, though, it's "normal, natural and necessary".

"Wild" is the unreasonable expectation your data is "personal" after sharing it with a third party, under a terms of service agreement no less.

It's definitely not fixed: the (likely malicious?) redirect still happens for me now. How embarassing (for you).

> Perf Quarter 23.60%

That's why they call it "Buy the Rumor, Sell the News"

Do you put "accidentally" in quotes to support your baseless accusation? Because you have provided no evidence of any wrongdoing, only biased speculation.

If you can't play videos on an M2, that's not a Youtube problem, that's a "you messed your computer up" problem.

Actually, I do: the fact most people use Chrome and not Firefox.

Virtually yelling and calling me "bro" doesn't form an argument for government intervention, but it seems to help you vent, so have at it.

Firefox share declined because the market objectively decided Chrome is a better browser. Framing it as Chrome "picking" on Firefox is just silly. And I say this as a die-hard Firefox user and fan.

Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes users just prefer faster, better advertised, better supported software. To suggest Google is actively and wilfully interfering with <3% of browser market share is just so ridiculous, so foolish, it is actually amusing.

They are just that - philosophies. I live my life based on first-hand experience only, not the musings of a professor or even a poet. And I'm sorry to say it is as follows: not all people deserve compassion, nor patience. Most of the people I've come across in life are plainly stupid by choice, and a stupid person is the most dangerous kind.

On the other hand, individuals with special needs, children and animals are mostly defenseless in this world and actually deserve our attention. I have focused my time and resources on helping them (versus the family and friends "in need") and this has proven to be more fulfilling, and I believe ultimately more selfless than my past self.

If they already took substantial market share, why would they need tofurther break Firefox users' experience? You just made my point for me.

Government authority is not absolute: it must derive power from some law or other legal basis, which does not presently exist for "websites [which] break in competitor's browser". And if you are suggesting creating precedence for it, I ask you to carefully consider that responsibility in the hands of government bureaucrats, which are generally of low skill and intelligence, and are potent to abuse it.

> Youtube on firefox has been broken since they started their ad-blocker brigade.

I use Youtube in Firefox daily, even in Strict mode with many user.js tweaks, and have never had a problem.

> The UI has become sluggish and 'pause-y'.

Get a faster computer.

This is a baseless accusation which defies logic.

Chrome has 65.76% of the browser market share.

Firefox has 2.93% of the browser market share, and of those, only some Android users were affected.

And you're saying Google purposefully contrived a situation to break their own service to get those <3% of users to go and install Chrome, and assume those users knew to take that action? All while keeping this conspiracy quiet from other staff at Google and with malicious (and possibly anti-competitive) intent?

Or is it possible no one cares about Firefox because so few people use it and this is the result of a simple bug?

Fined by whom? On what authority?

It's fascinating how people clamor for more government regulation and control at the first sign of trouble, without reasoning about the implications of those things, despite a history replete with examples of power abuse from the same.

Is that what you think happened here? Google made the search page blank for Firefox users to get them on Chrome? Or perhaps it's the work of Hanlon's razor.

How is DDG "better" than Google? In my experience it serves almost identical results. And it's now served from Microsoft servers, so the argument "it's more private" doesn't really hold water anymore.

That has less to do with being vegan and all to do with being aware of what micronutrients your body needs to thrive. Everyone benefits from B12 supplementation as it's no longer possible to derive it from the natural environment; even farm animals are routinely injected with B12 and a cocktail of other vitamins.

Non-vegans have just as many nutritional deficiencies, if not more, like a total lack in fiber. And for every neglectful vegan, there are ten unhealthy animal product-eating individuals with even more debilitating diseases, like diabetes, for example.

Also, DHA/EPA is synthesized in the body; it's not necessary to supplement them, nor any other vitamins you had listed, other than B12 and possibly D3 (depending on your latitude).

Eating a variety of plant based foods on a daily basis meets all amino acid requirements. If you're not sure, you can use a site like Cronometer to validate it. It seems the more a person is worried about protein, the less they know about it and nutrition generally.

Already covered by my previous comment: the people in this study simply did not eat enough food.

> the recommended energy intake was not met on any of the days by more than half of the participants (55%) (Table 3), and only 10% met the recommended energy intake on all three days.

Fig. 1 even directly demonstrates my point: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-02...

Can you point out any vegan/vegatarian suffering from an amino acid imbalance (while eating an isocaloric amount of food; i.e., not starving)? Even a case study would do to demonstrate your point.

Sounds like you briefly became aware of a cognitive dissonance and even stumbled upon an subconscious ideology, in this case Carnism.

Melanie Joy speaks wonderfully on this subject and your realization: https://www.richroll.com/podcast/melanie-joy/

The speciesism in this comment is profound, as if you have some empirical evidence an octupus is more intelligent than, say, a pig; or whether a creature's lack of ability to reason (versus feel pain and suffer) gives way to treat it cruelly.

> Besides that, I haven't seen any studies that show a vegan or vegetarian diet makes someone healthier.

You must not have looked. Almost all (except for commercially funded) studies prove plant-based diets are much healthier; it's literally the scientific consensus in nutrition.