You my friend are an idiot. I already said this above but what about the people who trusted their medical provider who reccomended this service to them to find a proper diagnosis? They should just get fucked for trusting a professional in the field. We fucking rely on companies to a fault. It's ass. we could you know blame the company for the shitty actions of collecting this data rather than the average ignorant consumers. That's like blaming the person who told you your significant other is cheating on you for ruining your marriage, or even blaming yourself. It's asinine.

And for the people that their doctors reccomended it to them? It's their fault for trusting their medical provider? No. You should hold these corporations accountable for their shitty behavior. I guess people should stop buying oil & gas because that is killing the very planet they walk on. Oh wait! They can't without an alternative that the government could easily provide! The company didn't need to do shitty things in the first place. Fuck capitalism and fuck companies.

Not funny, it's fucked up is what it is. Don't blame consumers for a companies shady tactics.

you bet ur ass it'll make it into trump vance campaign ads.

Pretty big fuckup 🤦

Too little too late lol

I wish this was true....

Anytime I open Vim I ask the same question.

"how the fuck do I use you?"

then go back to nano

repeat.

Again you just don't like my answer. Yet you have nothing to say about it being factually incorrect.

You too.

absolute. fucking. legend.

yes that is it thank you so much!

Please explain how I came off as insulting? Nowhere in my statement was it meant to come off as insulting. If you are referring to the quote "am I the bad guy" I was talking about mozilla and trying to use the principle skinner meme in text format. It was a joke. It wasn't directed at you. My entire point is to not trust companies. There is no good company. Mozilla was doing good things but the fact of the matter is they put in an unnessescary feature and enabled it by default. Giving users control of settings they want right out of the gate is pro privacy, when you start choosing what you think is best for the user. That is anti-privacy.

To you that is "kinda lame" but you then explain it away by saying "at least it isn't as bad as other browsers that make you jump through hoops!" That is where we fundamentally disagree. Bad is still bad for me, and my line is unmovable. Whereas for you there is a line you are willing to move. You asked me why it was inherently anti-privacy and I explained that any company willing to enable a slimy feature by default like this is on the path to become anti-privacy/already is. what you confuse for hostility was me informing you on my posiition.

This isn't some conspiracy theory, way to be reductive. Companies always require growth and profit. If you think this is a conspiracy theory I have no idea how we even continue this conversation. Mozilla doesn't give two shits about you or I. Google started off as a company with the slogan "do no evil" look at how that is going. Do you trust that Google still is doing no evil because they had a slogan? No, you don't trust Google because they have built up this anti-privacy reputation. That started with a simple search engine.

Mozilla is testing the waters in what they can get away with. I was trying to provide alternatives for people who like Firefox but don't know where to go. I am actually trying to provide solutions rather than explain away a companies behavior as you seem to be doing (And you called us the shills which is ironic). If you don't like this and are worried about the implications there are other options.

Jesus Christ and you called me assumptive. Did I say anywhere to burn the creators of the Mozilla CORPORATION at the stake? No. Did I say anywhere that I hate mozilla? No. Did I say anywhere that the creators of the Mozilla Foundation are "nefarious villains" ? No. Did I say anywhere about mozilla being ignorant and clueless? No. They know exactly what they are doing and that is the problem. I think that companies are emotionless entities that seek profit over well being.

Also where was this "wild rage" you talk about. TBH your reply is more insulting than my response. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

Please tell me why this feature needed to be on by default? The absolute necessary reason this feature had to be turned on for every user. Why the user couldn't turn it on themselves? Do you think the user is too stupid to know what is best for themselves? If they came up with a pop up for you that says "this feature tracks you, do you want to enable it?" would you turn it on?

"not the far reaching ramifications it might lead to." Oh I get it, you only care if it is harming you now (which it is). Not what these actions could lead to in the future. You are like a frog in a boiling pot of water. The thing is this shit is gradual. My argument is simply stating that this is the start of something you may not want to be a part of in the future.

In the blogpost you link they specifically say that this feature tracks you but not in the normal cookie way you are used to. Tracking is still tracking and it's gross. Tracking is anti-privacy do you agree? Tracking should not be enabled by default. Period. Tracking as an out of the box feature and not something a user chooses to opt into is anti-privacy.

If you wanted a specific type of answer for your "invitation" then be more specific when you ask. You replied to me with that question, I gave you my answer and you didn't like it.

Any company that is willing to enable options (such as advertising) without users permission/consent is anti privacy. While it may not be a big deal for you now, wait to see what else they try to explain away. You act as if ublock is just automatically installed for users, thus making this not a big deal. what about the thousands if not millions of users on default firefox? The fact that Mozilla did this without letting the user know it is on by default, is inherently anti privacy. Hell I would argue turning it on by default is inherently anti privacy. Especially when they try to explain it away on reddit when they faced backlash. "There has to be a reason our users are upset? Am I the bad guy? No it's the users who are bad!" It is a reminder that no company is your friend. This is a test to see what they can and cannot get away with. A test to see if the users notice/if enough would really jump ship to create an impact on their product.

I jumped ship as soon as this feature was found. Fuck that.

Librewolf is fantastic, it's FOSS Firefox. I have had absolutley no issues getting firefox extensions to work with librewolf.

Nah. Turning that feature on by default already set in stone for me their willingness to test the waters. If you don't think auto-enabling anti-privacy features is a problem I don't know what to tell you. It may be "small" right now, but just wait and see what else they will try to sneak in.

Use Librewolf and Mull instead.

you solved it! so I was doing some testing and The Outlast Trials actually runs great! However Deadlock must have a memory leak with proton or something because that seems to be the only game gradually dropping frames like that. Thank you so much

I know you refrenced Bigfish but I didn't see a comment from them. Thank you both!

I can finally use arch btw ;)

I've heard that the Nouveau drivers are not well optimized for gaming and that sticking with proprietary is better (🤮) or the limited open source drivers they officially released. Are you currently gaming on Nouveau drivers?

oh no! big corpo nintemdo is gonna be so sad!

lemme play a song on the world's smallest violin.

Tbh I was trusting my doctor. I had never really heard of 23andme except from his reccomendation. I thought it was a reliable source. Egg on my face. You live and you learn.

you can setup seperate peofiles and jeep your GOS apps seperate from your open source app profile. that's what I do.

Also accresent is already a part if the GrapheneOS appstore.

I don't see it as them endorsing her because they see her as a conservative. I see it as them endorsing her and later retreating to the Democratic party because right now it's the only party that seems rational for both sides. Let's be honest the Democrats are more Neoliberal than Democrat. To me, that shift is inching more and more to the right. It feels like setting the stage for a democratic party that is becoming the original 'reasonable' conservative values.

For the love of god I hope you are right. Guess we will wait and see what avenues they take. I feel like the conservative party and name is and will continue to be an irredeemable trash fire because of what MAGA has done to it.

Ah yes, Dick Cheney and the Raegan Administration. The pinnacle of morality. It seems people are really ok with brushing off what Cheney and W did with the supreme court and there election against Al Gore. They just did it in a more formal way than Orange Hitler tried to do.

These people not too long ago were singing praises to the Trump administration. How can you not furl your brow at the endorsement of Kamala. This is just a strategic game for these ghouls.

As I have said in other replies the writing is on the wall for their party. When the Democrats win I will not be surprised with the mass exodus for these people to the Democratic party.

I'm simply throwing out concerns I have had with these endorsements and all I have been told so far is to stop or that I am stupid. No one has given me concrete reasons as to why these fears are invalid.

Again nowhere have I said "don't vote for Kamala". I understand the sense of urgency people are feeling. However, this is just putting off the problem. Voting for Kamala does not end the right's thirst for facisism.

Kamala wins. What about the election 4 years after? Or 4 years after that? People are tired of nothing changing for them, do you really think that momentum is going to be quelmed? Do you really think less and less people will be not exhausted? Facisism is an ongoing battle but there is clear messaging on the wall for attacks that could cripple it deep.

I mean Jesus Christ Medicaid for all would surely make people think twice about voting for the party that didn't give it to them. That's one of the most popular issues that could give Democrats a slam dunk for years to come. Are they interested in that? Absolutely not.

I have yet to here any slam dunk policies from the Harris campaign besides " project 2025 bad mmmmkay" which is a given at this point.

It seems also people forget Kamala's original campaign promises and how swiftly she has tried to distance herself from them. Which is fucking disappointing.

These are the same people that fear mongered us into Afghanistan and Iraq for their own personal gain. What makes you think they aren't doing it here?