The funny thing is that make a big deal about blocking Brave on "ethical" grounds, but don't e tend the logic to Chrome, Edge or Safari. Talk about punching down/virtue signaling.
They outline a very specific behaviour that Brave engaged in but Chrome, Edge, and Safari do not. Brave was engaging in fraudulent behaviour, wherein it posed a fake donations scheme to users of the browser under the guise of supporting website owners with their implicit but nonexistent consent, and in actuality took the money for itself. Brave then also specifically and publicly singled out Lobsters in an issue. Lobsters devs do not want to spend dev time engaging with scammers operating in bad faith. Seems fair to me.
Allegedly. This, the "Brave was putting ads of their own on other pages" and "adding the referrer code for Binance" stories get thrown around like they were (a) are all huge sources of profit (b) carried on with malicious intent and (c) on par with the BILLIONS of dollars in ad fraud that goes around and Google so conveniently turns a blind eye.
I don't particularly care how much money Brave made off the scheme. If Brave put my name and picture on an advertisement shown to Brave users, said that I was soliciting donations and would receive the money, and then took the money, that is immediately far more personally offensive than virtually anything Google does. I was not myself actually affected by this, but it's incredibly easy for me to understand why someone would want nothing to do with Brave.
Also, it's basically a given that Brave is not in a position to generate billions through such a scheme. It simply doesn't have the market share for that. If Chrome did the same thing that Brave did, they probably would generate billions. It is equally unethical either way.
Moreover, Google has an effective monopoly. Even if you wanted to protest Chrome, you can't do so without effectively shutting down your website. Chrome coerces consent into whatever they do. Brave does not have that power. You describe that as punching down, but just because Chrome has the capability to coerce consent does not mean we should be surrendering our consent to anyone and everyone.
They didn't do that. They were not actively promoting creators. it was the opposite. They were letting people mark someone as a potential recipient of contributions as a way to bootstrap their network.
> just because Chrome has the capability to coerce consent does not mean we should be surrendering our consent to anyone and everyone.
Your bias is showing.
Brave did not "coerce" anything to anyone. Their crypto stuff is opt-in. The ad blocker is opt-in.
Rationalize all you want, if you think that is justified to have a website blocking a browser like Brave because "of what they do to users", then it should be a moral imperative to help others to stop using chrome, edge and Safari.
I've seen the screenshot of the half-screen overlay pop-up advertisement that was displayed to Brave users. The "Welcome!" banner together with an actual photo of the person in question, together with the wording of the solicitation, is something that would absolutely give many, if not most, uninformed users the impression that the solicitation originated from the person featured.
Neither I, nor the linked issue, cite that Brave was blocked "because of what they do to users". If this had happened to me, I would block them based on what they did to me. As I said, the act in question is personally offensive in a way that what Google does is not. It plays on the border of identity fraud. If a browser is using my identity to solicit donations, I'm well within my right to do what I can to interfere with that.
Regards to coercion, I did not say that Brave coerced anyone. I pointed out that Google effectively does via its monopoly power, and that is why that people cannot realistically choose to block Chrome. The matter of coercion is addressing your complaint that they aren't also blocking Chrome, not a criticism of Brave.
> the act in question is personally offensive in a way that what Google does is not.
A perceived, harmless, unintentional and nonetheless remediated offense is worse than the continuous abuse of power and anti-user practices from Google, Microsoft and Apple. It might seem justified to you, but to me it's just displaced indignation and illustrates why we will forever live in this corporate dystopia.
My moral compass does not change based on who is being accused, but context is fundamental to make a proper judgment.
It is hard to come up with a situation where Google would be doing these types of tricks, because Google is already the dominant player in the market and they don't want to create products that cannibalize their own revenue streams.
I think this is about being mad at Brendan Eich, the current CEO of the company behind Brave, for his opposition to legal gay marriage in the late 2000s/early 2010s. A lot of Lobsters moderators are queer and/or politically sympathetic to queer activism.
Which goes to show the importance of judging people by their actions and not their opinions: are they going to boycott Apple as well, since Tim Cook gave millions to Trump?
Brendan Eich donated money to the campaign in favor of Prop 8, the 2008 California ballot proposition that banned gay marriage and that was overturned by the courts some time later. He didn't publicize this himself IIRC but the donations were public information and became well-known when he was (briefly) appointed CEO of Mozilla.
Yeah, I am not interested in playing this tape again. The actions from Brendan as an individual are completely separate from his actions at Mozilla. Mozilla did not change any policy during his tenure and Brave is not accused of any discrimination practices or hostile to any minority group.
I picked a random Seagate 8TB drive that the site lists as costing $103. It's GBP 145 in the UK (~EUR 166) and as much as EUR 200 in my Eastern Europe country!
I, on the other hand, I love the EU. In spite of the fact that many products are sold for a lower price in the American market (not just electronics, also cars and others). I imagine it's even worse in the Australian market.
But, in the grand scheme of things, I can live with that, with free education and healthcare, among others.
Sure, I'm all for paying taxes if you get good services in return.
But what kills me is when buying stuff from the US and paying whatever import taxes are required on top of shipping, and VAT on top of all that, you still end up cheaper.
Taking GP's example, shipping, taxes on the product + shipping won't end up more than doubling the initial price.
Hell, things are so ridiculous that a while ago I bought an Italian-made[0] tripod and gear head from BH in NY. Had it shipped by UPS (large and heavy parcel, so not cheap), paid taxes on the complete price, and it was still way cheaper than buying locally from France.
--
[0] It pretends to be actually made in Italy, not only an Italian brand off-shoring production to Asia.
That’s not the EU’s fault, is it? At best the import taxes (if any) are on the EU. VAT is added by your country, and if something is more expensive after everything than importing it yourself, that’s on a lack of competition in your marketplace…
This looks like a classic EU vs constituent countries debate.
Your points are correct, but that's a general rebuff against photios' points: nothing is imposed by the EU itself; everything comes from the countries themselves, even if they all do the same thing.
However, I think photios' point was rather that EU countries tend to tax things to hell and back, even if the countries arrived at the same situation by their own means, rather than it being a general EU directive. dvfjsdhgfv's comment is the same: all the positive things in that comment come from the countries themselves; they're not EU directives, either.
Depending on where you live, Amazon might be one of the more expensive options. I've bought disks from a smaller Dutch website for our home server, for about 3€ cheaper per TB than Amazon's best offer. There's much better places to get IT stuff in Europe.
What I would consider is that nostr doesn't show you content. The content you see is a function of:
1. The people you follow
2. The relays you read from
3. The clients (apps) you use
I can't think of any clients which surface weird stuff (I've never seen any on nostr).
I think to reach this situation a user must follow weird accounts and thus get their content - but then I can't see that as being nostr related, since someone could do that on the internet or other networks.
It's euphemism for anime. Listening to these draw lines between porn and not-porn ever clearer, which users interpret that inside the line is free-for-all, and anime wins and obliterates everything even harder after the fix is implemented or strengthened.
These people come back fuming hot with more derogatory, still indirect, descriptions, and cycle repeats. This has been a "problem" for social media for almost as long as I've been online.
Yeah, they could say such and such handles are spreading content disgusting in such and such ways, e.g. "users like Sam Altman are posting astronauts riding horses on the Moon". They don't have to be so specific that exact contents would be actually accessible, only plausible. The mental imagery would not have to be precisely imaginable to disgusting details.
It's odd that they see "tons of" things that they can't describe beyond it belongs in the category, as if, just as if, actually characterizing it beyond making trust me remarks would lead to formation of broad consensus against them rather than against the contents.
Not really. Cryptos are born out of criticism for current systems and they are an ever evolving technology fueled by those same critics.
What doesn't make sense is when the other party starts making stories just to tarnish other competing technologies. Just now the OP was asked to provide details to replicate his findings and those were indeed very "fuzzy" to say the least.
> Cryptos are born out of criticism for current systems
Nope. Most are born out of people not understanding how existing systems work and/or looking to get rich quick.
> an ever evolving technology fueled by those same critics.
No, it's mostly a self-perpetuating self-congratulatory hype machine busily re-inventing the systems they criticise
> What doesn't make sense is when the other party starts making stories just to tarnish other competing technologies.
What does make sense is the extremely fragile ego of crypto bros who can't stand any criticism towards their scams and hype, or the mention of any possible issues.
All of that is correct, albeit not the full picture.
Crypto wasn't created as a "get rich quick". I say this because I was there since the early days and participated quite a bit on the related BBS. Back then you'd already make good money building bots for day trading on stocks, crypto was really about a type of currency that no government could touch.
Nowadays the large majority of users are desperate to make some money through pyramid schemes and pure speculation to "get rich quick" albeit they usually end up losing money. The small minority is doing what they've always done: looking at systems, criticizing systems and building their own solutions to those systems.
There is really good stuff being built. Not many do it, granted.
And.. why would I lie? I used nostr for a little while in the very early days. Stopped using it then came back and had this experience on a major nostr app.
To do that, St. Paul would need to make all the other 12 apostles buy into the story and start spreading it. Then do the same with the extended 70 apostles and their disciples. And, of course, change the gospels.
In addition, the "concept of Jesus" is something that's woven throughout the Old Testament. St. Paul would have to go back in time and change the Torah and books of prophets like Daniel and Isaiah.
> In addition, the "concept of Jesus" is something that's woven throughout the Old Testament. St. Paul would have to go back in time and change the Torah and books of prophets like Daniel and Isaiah.
As I understand it, a number of people claimed to be the Messiah in Jesus' lifetime (and before, or since for that matter, including today). I don't think Old Testament references to the Messiah are all that meaningful as such for this particular discussion. Whether Jesus is or isn't the Messiah is of course a matter of faith.
> Paul would need to make all the other 12 apostles buy into the story and start spreading it.
I'm not sure that follows.
What works do you believe that we have from these 12 people - and how would you evaluate the relative credibility of them and Paul / Saul?
As I understand it, Paul conceded he got all his information <sic> about Jesus from revelation, and there's a compelling argument to be made that his works all describe a different entity (a supernatural one) than the human-like character described elsewhere, and much later, in the NT.
Paul's writings largely precede the gospels, so he wouldn't have needed to "change" them. They were written later. He could have drafted them himself for all we know.
> They were written later. He could have drafted them himself for all we know.
I mean, that's not at all true. You’d have to ignore the same research that tells us that they were written later in the first place to say we have no information with which to reject that they have a common authorship with the Pauline corpus.
There is no mention of the 12 apostles except for IIRC 1 Cor 15 which is likely an interpolation. He mentions only James (bro of Jesus, curiously erased from history), Cephas (/Peter?) and John. And he doesn't use kind words about them...
From the map dialog for Lystra, visited on his first and second journeys:
**
>Second Journey Verses (Acts16:1-5):
>Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. 2 The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.
**
I guess you need to have rules if you're gonna let people play the disciple game. Rule #1 - Get circumsized. This rule may be most effective at limiting disciple group size since any uncommitted wannabees would take a hard pass. I'm left wondering whether this could be the origin of "just the tip", or tipping culture?
Luckily for Timothy, Paul was a tent-maker or leather-worker, depending on which translation you favor, so he likely had some really sharp tools and would be able to make short work of this little project. Timothy probably didn't find much delight in pitching tents for a while though. Pretty funny trying to imagine walking around preaching for converts after this operation and wondering whether they had a cone or something like your cat gets at the vet to shield the parts from scratchy robes while walking. Probably lots of talking to God on those journeys.
An argument against the position that the "concept of Jesus" is woven throughout the Old Testament is that the Jews did not accept him as such. And yes, I do know about all the 'christian' reasons why that did not happen, but it is rather obvious that there is no need to rewrite the Torah and books of prophets like Daniel and Isaiah.
> no need to rewrite the Torah and books of prophets like Daniel and Isaiah
Funny you mention that. Because those Jews (not all of them, mind you) that did not accept the Messiah did try to change the book of Isaiah. The mental gymnastics about the "Almah" translation continue to this day.
TIL Jefferson published his own "version" of the New Testament. [1]
> Jefferson mashed up/cut and pasted the New Testament to remove any references to the supernatural, or miracles, as well as the divinity of Christ. His title for the book was "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," which tells us a lot about his motivations.
Yah, I deleted my 10+ yo account there over that. I won't have a site tell me what browser I should or should not use.
reply