Their acquisition of Anonym was all about acquiring the feature this article is about, PPA. Anonym created PPA. In fact Anonym seems to have been created for the explicit purpose of creating this privacy-respecting system as an alternative to cross-site tracking cookies. I see no reason to doubt Mozilla’s intentions here.
Yeah - I’ve actually softened my own stance since I wrote that paragraph near the end, too, I just didn’t feel like editing a message that I claimed to have copy/pasted. While I still have no intention of enabling the feature in my install, that’s out of pure spite for anything that could conceivably help an advertiser somewhere, even if it isn’t at my expense. I do see value in the feature itself existing. While I think the industry is unlikely to abandon tracking cookies and swap to this system voluntarily, I could see certain governments eventually mandating such a change, if the feature proves robust enough.
I might even go as far as to agree that on-by-default is the better option for the feature’s chances of success - but for new installs. When new features are added to existing installs in updates, particularly if those features are in the “Privacy & Security” section of the settings page, it would probably be better practice to ask the user to pick an option on the first boot after updating.
Copy/pasting my comment from the earlier thread on this that got deleted for misinformation
After reading about the actual feature (more), this seems like an absolutely gigantic non-issue. Like most anti-Mozilla stories end up being.
The whole thing is an experimental feature intended to replace the current privacy nightmare that is cross-site tracking cookies. As-implemented it’s a way for advertisers to figure out things like “How many people who went to our site and purchased this product saw this ad we placed on another site?”, but done in such a way that neither the website with the ad, nor the website with the product, nor Mozilla itself knows what any one specific user was doing.
The only thing I looked for but could not find an answer on one way or the other is if Mozilla is making any sort of profit from this system. I would guess no but actually have no idea.
There are definitely things that can be said about this feature, like “Fuck ad companies, it should be off by default” (my personal take), or “It’s a pointless feature that’s doomed to failure because it’ll never provide ad companies with information as valuable as tracking cookies, so it’ll never succeed in its goal to replace tracking cookies” (also my take). But the feature itself has virtually no privacy consequences whatsoever for anybody.
I’m absolutely convinced there’s a coordinated anti-Firefox astroturfing campaign going on lately.
That feature (more) they’ve been getting all that negative press over for the past two days is an absolutely gigantic non-issue. Like most anti-Mozilla stories end up being.
The whole thing is an experimental feature intended to replace the current privacy nightmare that is cross-site tracking cookies. As-implemented it’s a way for advertisers to figure out things like “How many people who went to our site and purchased this product saw this ad we placed on another site?”, but done in such a way that neither the website with the ad, nor the website with the product, nor Mozilla itself knows what any one specific user was doing.
There are definitely things that can be said about this feature, like “Fuck ad companies, it should be off by default” (my personal take). But the feature itself has virtually no privacy consequences whatsoever for anybody, and Mozilla is at least trying to build a system that would legitimately improve the privacy situation on the internet created by companies like Google.
To anyone reading, don’t do this. The real toggle is here.
After reading about the actual feature (more), this seems like an absolutely gigantic non-issue. Like most anti-Mozilla stories end up being.
The whole thing is an experimental feature intended to replace the current privacy nightmare that is cross-site tracking cookies. As-implemented it’s a way for advertisers to figure out things like “How many people who went to our site and purchased this product saw this ad we placed on another site?”, but done in such a way that neither the website with the ad, nor the website with the product, nor Mozilla itself knows what any one specific user was doing.
The only thing I looked for but could not find an answer on one way or the other is if Mozilla is making any sort of profit from this system. I would guess no but actually have no idea.
There are definitely things that can be said about this feature, like “Fuck ad companies, it should be off by default” (my personal take), or “It’s a pointless feature that’s doomed to failure because it’ll never provide ad companies with information as valuable as tracking cookies, so it’ll never succeed in its goal to replace tracking cookies” (also my take). But the feature itself has virtually no privacy consequences whatsoever for anybody.
I’m absolutely convinced there’s a coordinated anti-Firefox astroturfing campaign going on lately.
Completely ignoring your “short enough to finish in a day” instruction, try out Worm
WTF Is… Thomas Was Alone ? for those wanting a deeper dive and a some dead-guy nostalgia
Seems like the latter
Using uBlock Origin to get rid of the Youtube Shorts section of the sub feed was amazing for me. Are there other things you block too?
I’ve gotta wonder if the charge is being pushed by someone who opposes the law being talked about in the video, who wants its first application to be in a case so ridiculous it’ll create mass public opposition to it or something. That’s the only scenario I can think of where an otherwise functioning adult may make a decision that poor.
Would the southern shape here also qualify as a triangle?
What if you went the short way instead of the long way, creating the spherical triangle people usually use - then is the “outside” portion of the triangle itself another triangle?
In Jeopardy, if you provide an unintended answer that’s still technically correct, and still fits the category, they’ll still mark you as correct - or if they fail to, they may rectify the mistake with a change to the scores after the next commercial break.
What was the category? If it was vague enough I’d guess they’d accept either “dilithium” or “antimatter”, but if it’s something like “Fictional substances” then by traditional Jeopardy rules only dilithium would fit.
Jeopardy clues in general reward people who have shallow knowledge in lots of topics. As a rule of thumb when giving clues on specific topics, those clues will be answerable by an enthusiastic layman - you never really need to be an expert to get them right. If they ask a clue in a subject you do happen to be an expert in, you’ll occasionally notice they get the details wrong - rarely even to the point of judging responses incorrectly.
filtered out of post counts
Revolutionary. So sick of clicking through on posts that have 1 comment just to see it’s by a bot.
Is every other message there something you typed? Or is it arguing with itself? Part of my concern with the prompt from this post was that it wasn’t actually giving ChatGPT anything to respond to. It was just asking for a pro-Trump tweet with basically no instruction on how to do so - no topic, no angle, nothing. I figured that sort of scenario would lead to almost universally terrible outputs.
I did just try it out myself though. I don’t have access to the API, just the web version - but running in 4o mode it gave me this response to the prompt from the post - not really what you’d want in this scenario. I then immediately gave it this prompt (rest of the response here). Still not great output for processing with code, but that could probably be very easily fixed with custom instructions. Those tweets are actually much better quality than I expected.
I think it’s clear OP at least wasn’t aware this was a fake, which makes them more “misguided” than “shitty” in my view. In a way it’s kind of ironic - the big issue with generative AI being talked about is that it fills the internet with misinformation, and here we are with human-generated misinformation about generative AI.
Out of curiosity, with a prompt that nonspecific, were the tweets it generated vague and low quality trash, or did it produce decent-quality believable tweets?
Look, let’s not be picky here