Regulations prevent the sale of small, cheap trucks in the US. I'm so sick of "BIG MANN TRUCK" being blamed on ego. The kind small basic of truck you used to be able to buy just doesn't exist any more and it's been regulated out of existence. The Maverick doesn't even stand-in very well for this and Ford can barely keep up with the demand.
In 2014 I got a very nice and very basic brand new sedan for about $14k. That's not so long ago, but the car market in the US seems to get worse every year. (cost, newer models are bloated and overly-expensive, etc.) My only advice would be to buy now (ideally something used) since I can only imagine things will be even worse in a few years.
Yup, we bought a new base model Corolla in 2016 and there’s no sensible way to upgrade or get something nicer. We put 70k miles on it in 9 years. We’ve looked into upgrading more than once, we could easily afford it, but anything that would be a true upgrade (bigger and nicer) is just such a ridiculous waste of money given how inflated car prices have been since Covid. Add to that that the nicer car will then also be much more expensive to keep on the road…and it just makes no sense.
I think a more valid comparison would be that you have two tribesmen who have lived in the jungle all their lives, but one has a very low IQ, while one has a very high IQ. Both crash land in the jungle. Who has the bigger chance of surviving?
This discourse on military action seems to be incredibly misinformed. I think some people only know how to think of any military action in terms of "is this like Vietnam, or is this like Iraq?"
Kernel-level anti-cheat is quite bad, and I just wish it would be abandoned altogether rather than extended to Linux. This wasn't a problem when we had private servers rather than random matchmaking.
Modern private servers have this problem too. CS2 private servers like Face-IT and Esea have additional anti cheat. Even Grand Theft Auto V's private servers FiveM has their own custom anti cheat before Rockstar added one
Anticheats like BattleEye started as private servers add-ons like this too, not official support, but admins choose to install them. I even remember Brood War's private ICCUP servers had their anti-hack as they called it.
One thing I'm interested are the EFF demo sites which try to identify if you're "uniquely fingerprint-able." What I've seen a lot in the discourse is people attempting to increase the privacy of their browser (via add-ons, configurations, etc) only to see their browser become _more_ unique. They then conclude that you cannot get away from fingerprinting.
I think there are a few potential problems with this approach.
- A lot of browser-based mitigations (such as Firefox's "resist fingerprinting" settings) send dummy data to websites. So yes, you may have a unique fingerprint according to the EFF site. But, when you visit it later, you could in principle have a different unique fingerprint. I haven't seen much discourse which discusses whether this is a viable point of not. Yes, my Linux Firefox with a bunch of weird settings clearly stands out. But maybe I have a different fingerprint across visits?
- Additionally, this strategy seems to say "don't be unique, blend in with the crowd. Look like Windows 10 and Chrome." I think there must be some validity to this. But clearly, advertiser fingerprinting is _most_ interested in the vast middle of the bell curve, ie that huge mass of users with Windows 10-11 & Chrome & Edge. If looking just like everyone else were somehow an effective mitigation, then the advertisers' tracking technology would not actually be effective for the vast majority of cases; the ones they care about the most.
- I also wonder what the difference is between what security researches at EFF and other places can do in principle vs. what various websites are actually doing in practice. It's important to remember that advertising is now like a warrant; if an advertiser thinks you're a different person and serves you the wrong ad, no one will ever notice or care. They have no way to verify it, and whatever error exists won't ever show up in their promotional materials. Even if the fingerprinting technology is quite strong, I sincerely doubt the statistics we hear from advertisers (ie, "we can identify 90% of users") can be very accurate.
I don't mean to suggest that my points are strictly correct -- however I also don't think the usual discourse around the realities of advertising and tracking really gets to the bottom of things in a very accurate or useful way.
And when I block js, most websites are still readable. (some even look better!) The fact that some sites work just fine without js mean that most could. Certainly the sites load much, much quickly without the js. 90% of the time all I want is the text, which loads perfectly without it. JS is a huge waste of resources with no real benefit to consumers. Some web apps need it, yes, but even those could still do fine without it. (until recently there was still an HTML gmail app which worked just fine.)
If you have Firefox with "resist fingerprinting" enabled then you are feeding it some dummy data. People worry about the fact that this might make you "unique," but fail to grasp that if you look differently unique every time you're not necessarily identifiable.
I think it's pretty debatable that Chrome is currently better, but you're definitely correct. When Chrome first debuted (and for years afterwards) it was clearly superior to Firefox.
>stream audiobooks
>leave house, commit crime
reply