Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | someothherguyy's commentslogin

However, it is a decent news aggregator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events



His analysis is flawed.

> Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report.

If the phenomenon we are trying to study is somehow intelligent, then the observer effect will see to it that skeptics will never progress towards understanding until they're somehow "ready", whatever that means.

https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/response.html


She also says

" There is little benefit in continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data. "

Which is an insane thing to say and reveals her motivated reasoning.


The results have been collected using experimental rigour stricter than medical trials.

The one's engaged in motivated reasoning are skeptics like you and Randy who refuse to engage with the data because of, ironically, motivated reasoning. The data is clear. Either point out the flaws in the experimental protocols or consider you have some metaphysical priors to update.


That says 2019, but it was published in 1995:

https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

This goes into way more detail and covers Utts's work.

https://www.priory-of-sion.com/biblios/images/mumford.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts


different source that loads without javascript https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/12/oceanographe...

(lacking details on the bottle itself)



you took amphetamine and weren't depressed suddenly? in my experience, that lasts a bit, but give it another decade or so. it tends to bite in other ways.


Going to depend on your dosages. I try to stay low and will take breaks to help reduce dependency. I actually really dislike the feeling of a high dosage and it does have negative effects at that end.

Also remember that everyone reacts differently to things. SSRIs work great for some people, but not for me. So it's worth trying different classes of medicines too but also to make sure that when having more dangerous ones. I made sure close friends knew too


What ways?



This is like when people defend Windows 11's nonsense by saying "you can disable or remove that stuff". Yes, you can. But you shouldn't have to, and I personally prefer to use tools which don't shove useless things into the tool because it's trendy.


not to mention firefox routinely blows up any policies you set during upgrades, incompatibilities, and an endless about:config that is more opaque than a hunk of room temperature lard.


Well, you aren't the only person using a tool, and it probably matters more to those who are making things "trendy".

In general, how else would people "learn" about a feature unless it was enabled by default or the product nagged them?


The difference is that on Windows all unwanted features eventually become mandatory, with no way of switching them off. With Firefox, it never happens.


If you listen to the doomers in this thread, it will.

They "will" remove the option from settings, hide it in about:config, then later on remove it from there!

Of course none of that is true...


They already have hidden these in about:config!

Right click anywhere, (ask an AI chatbot) right there. Go to settings, search AI or search Chatbot, nothing.


It's plausible because the team working on the settings screen will be reassigned to the "AI".


That's just doom saying at this point.


Mozilla hasn't had the benefit of the doubt for quite a while here. This isn't just one small kerfuffle coming out of nowhere.

They say trust takes a lifetime to build and seconds to break ". We're years into it at this point.


> Mozilla hasn't had the benefit of the doubt for quite a while here

In contrast to Google Chrome? This is just FUD. Ublock Origin is still working and will be working. Full customization is still there and isn't going away. All of that is unlike in Chrom(ium).


This is not a thread comparing Mozilla to Google. This is a thread where we worry about how a non google browsing alternative stays alive. Of course none of us posting here trusts Google.


> we worry about how a non google browsing alternative stays alive

> This is just FUD. Ublock Origin is still working and will be working. Full customization is still there and isn't going away.


> This is just FUD. Ublock Origin is still working

Correct.

> and will be working.

How do you know?

> Full customization is still there

Correct.

> and isn't going away.

How do you know?

How do you know this new "AI" CEO won't let both support for Manifest V2 and extensive settings rot because "AI can do it for you" for example?

Or as I said earlier, because they'll run out of money to pay for non "AI" features?


> How do you know?

Extrapolation. Also, because it's FLOSS and can be modified by anyone.


If you need to compare yourself to the literal devil then you're probably far from a saint yourself.


So what's the solution? Stay with the devil?


How is this different from linux? People happily spend hours customizing defaults in their OS. It’s usually a point of praise for open source software.


Bad defaults are bad defaults, and "you can turn them off" is not a good excuse for bad defaults continuing to be bad defaults


It is the default in every major browser at this point.

https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#GenAiDefaultSettin...


Bad defaults are bad defaults, and "our competitor does the same thing" is not a good excuse for bad defaults continuing to be bad defaults


And Mozilla copying what every other browser (read: Chrome) does is exactly why thy no longer have any relevant market share.


Easy for who? 99% of people are not going/able to setup firefox policies.


More than 1% of humans can read and create a file on computer. Others know how to read and use a search engine, and way more can be instructed by a LLM on how to do so.

I would say it is nearly as easy as installing waterfox or some other privacy focused fork of Firefox.


Even if we ignore things like "they're chasing AI fads instead of better things" and "they're adding attack surface" and so forth, and just focus on the disabling feature toggles thing...

... Mozilla has re-enabled AI-related toggles that people have disabled. (I've heard this from others and observed it myself.) They also keep adding new ones that aren't controlled by a master switch. They're getting pretty user-hostile.


Is it really in all 4 of those places? Just need to change it in the first two, right? I hate the new AI tab feature and wish they had a non-AI option.


You can disable the one option. I included links to the source code to show the level of preferences you can customize, and how it is processed.


They absolutely know people want that, and absolutely aren't going to add it.


There are already user-facing preferences for all of the AI features currently in Firefox. Some of them you don’t even have to go into Settings for, just right-click > Remove AI chatbot. They’re annoying, but I appreciate that they still need to be explicitly approved by the user to be enabled (for now).


I'm aware of the settings. I've toggled them. I'm suggesting a convenient global "AI off" toggle won't be provided.


google is acting like they own CSS


i wonder how many years (decades?) out this is still. it would be wild to be able to run something like that locally in a browser. although, it will probably be punishable by death by then.


This made me chuckle lol


for all of 20 minutes, the world cried.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: