Maybe you should check your memory? I recently started to get quite a lot of Firefox crashes, and definitely contributed to this statistic. In the end, the problem was indeed memory - crashes stopped after I tuned down some of the timings. And I used this RAM for a few years with my original settings (XMP profile) without issue.
I experience them in several different devices; On my main device, I have hundreds of chrome tabs and often many workloads running that would be completely corrupt with random bit flips. I'm not discarding the possibility of faulty RAM completely, I just take the measurement of the tweet with a huge grain of salt - after all, I still remember when the FF team constantly denied - for more than half a decade - that the browser had serious memory leak problems, so its not like there isn't a history of pointing out other causes for FF crashes.
> You wouldn’t trust a 30-year-old car to drive cross-country.
The main difference between software and physical objects like cars is that they degrade with the passage of time (due to wear, corrosion, etc...). If we would magically be able to get a brand new 30-year-old car, it would make absolute sense to use one for a trip where reliability is paramount, as the failure modes of such a car are better understood compared to a brand new design, and can be mitigated.
> The granted orders would stay in place for a year with the option to extend if necessary. If blocked sites switch to new locations, the court can also amend blocking orders to include new IP addresses and domain names.
What if the "pirate site" uses foreign cloud provider, and regularly changes IP addresses? Will I lose access to all websites hosted by the foreign cloud provider once their whole ASN will be blocked?
> Block BEARD does not mention VPNs, but its broad definition of “service provider” could be interpreted to include them.
This seems easy to circumvent - you can just use foreign VPN provider, who don't advertise themselves for piracy use, for... piracy. IP/DNS blocking proven to be a good censorship tool though.
> Historians describe that Russian peasants pre-1917 were basically living in Medieval conditions
FWIW, communism actually forced Russian peasants back into Medieval conditions: first by punishing former peasants who became landowners (so called kulaks), who were declared as class enemies and persecuted. And later by forming Kolkhozes (collective farms), which were not that different from serfdom: children born by members of Klokhoz were forced to work in Kolkhoz too, members had to work state-owned land for free or for minimal amount of sustenance (about a pound of grain per day), and de facto were not allowed to legally leave.
> Maybe Communism was the only way to drag Russian society, kicking and screaming, into the modern era that other European nations had attained, centuries earlier.
It wasn't. Stolypin reforms implemented from 1906 through 1914 aimed at making peasants landowners was a better way.
Personally, I cancelled all my subscriptions (Netflix, Prime, Apple TV+, Hulu, HIDIVE, AMC+) this christmas and reverted to piracy.
Modern piracy (the so called *ARR stack) provide UX that is pretty close to what you get from streaming services. In some cases even better - now I will use just one app on my TV to watch everything, will not be affected by Netflix/Prime/Apple/Hulu or internet provider outages when I am watching a movie or TV show, and will not have to go through 4 or 5 apps when I am searching for something specific to watch.
The UX is slightly worse when I find a movie or TV show via Plex Discovery and want to watch it immediately, since I will have to wait for *ARR to pick it up and download it, but for now I have quite a few TV shows to finish watching before it will become an inconvenience for me, especially given the fact that this stack can subscribe to upcoming shows - I can tell it that I am interested in Fallout for example, and it will monitor releases and download the show once it will become available.
I already had cheaper HD Netflix subscription, and didn't notice difference between it and UHD Prime/Apple TV/Hulu. I only noticed that I didn't have UHD when I was cancelling it, to be honest. Maybe my TV is not big enough or I am too far from the screen for this to be noticeable (65" Sony OLED TV about 3 to 4 meters from my coouch).
Regarding the pirated content - I just started, so my experience have pretty low sample size. Still, majority of shows I downloaded so far are in 4K. The only one in 1080p is older show, for which I think there's no 4K source material.
> For example, if a user deleted their* content, Facebook can still use it and show to their friends. That's why it's "kinda".
I don't think it is correct. If you asked Facebook to remove your data from platform, it will be a GDPR (and probably CCPA, etc...) violation for Facebook to not delete your data within 1 month.
I don't think that's true. "Right to erasure" still works just as well as it always has, but you might need to ask the folks who have scraped and are re-sharing your information to also delete your personal data. That's not an unreasonable thing to have happen, nor is it an unreasonable thing to expect.
Let's suppose an embarrassing image of Person X is shared on Facebook and Person X uses their right to erasure with Facebook to delete their profile. Facebook has no control over the folks who may have downloaded or screenshot-ed that photo and turned it into subsequent memes. Likewise, if someone straight up scrapes and re-shares, that's not Facebook responsibility.
What I don't want to see happen is for:
1. Facebook to make it somehow impossible for anyone to ever copy or screenshot that or any photo, preventing anyone from ever doing anything with photos on Facebook without Facebook's explicit permission. This would seem to be quite the loss of user agency for very little society wide benefit (also, how would they do this?)
2. Facebook to somehow "control" that photo so closely that Facebook is able to remotely revoke folk's copies and screenshots of said photo in the spirit of "abiding by a persons right to erasure"; that'd be a huge overreach, but seems like the only other way to approach this (though "how" is also an open question).
Even asserting that "unlimited scraping makes some privacy regulations moot" seems like an implication that we can only have privacy laws by going towards situation #1, and that doesn't seem accurate given that folks can use existing privacy laws to remove content from any distributor (as long as they're compliant).
Not exactly. You can request a site to erase all the data it has on you, but not that they erase the memories of everyone who has seen this data. How is this any different?
Your tone implies you're serious, but I struggle to believe anyone could possibly equate persisting digital media with recalling a memory.
In case you really need an example to elucidate, consider reproducing an image. A scraper can quite literally accomplish that, trivially; a great artist would still be limited in multiple facets of the recreation, such that even one with the best memory and hand would find themselves far short of pixel-perfect.
I wonder how we would regard a person who could reliably perform such a feat whenever he pleased. Would we sterilize him, lest he give rise to a bunch of cute little privacy-invading monsters?
If the feat you mean is to perfectly recall disparaging information they see about people on web sites, we already have people with quite good memories. Irrelevance usually keeps them from bringing up the details of strangers' lives on a regular basis. If the juicy details are about friends or acquaintances, well, it's very easy to destroy one's social position - at least, with non-toxic people - by endlessly and tiresomely discussing other people's misfortunes or mistakes.
How many of them saved it and then reuploaded it elsewhere? Sorry, but talking about protecting the privacy of people who upload things for anyone to see just seems silly to me.
So at which scale does the copying of data lower privacy, such that humans looking at it and potentially screenshooting it doesn't, but automated processes copying it does?
No, but since we are talking about laws, it is important to define the point beyond which a kind of behavior becomes unacceptable, or at least some set of criteria to determine when a specific instance is beyond that point.
I would like an option for those of us who don’t care and click whatever button have brighter color. Like a default consent to sharing all data. This don’t have to be on by default. This would improve my browsing experience tremendously.
> you can do pretty much the same with Google Pixel and more.
Can you? According to apple website, “AirTag is designed to keep going more than a year on a standard battery you can easily replace”. Pixel probably wouldn’t last even a week.
As I mentioned, that might not be a problem at all. If you can put it there once, you can probably take it out every week or two, charge it and replace it. Or replace the powerbank it is hooked up to.
Not all surveillance needs to be constant and long term. If you are curious what your wife does during lunchtime or what is your coworkers address it might be enough to get it running for couple of hours.
