I liked the vast modding community around Morrowind and had plenty of fun playing around with it in my younger years.
If the concept of art one has in mind limits creative endeavour and acts as a gatekeeper to art, then it is probably better not to have a concept of art at all.
I'm glad I'll never find out how much fun, skill gain and artful cultural production I might have missed if I had carried a false, limiting idea of art back then.
Yet adding them wouldn't make the game better, as it just wasn't designed around voiced lines. NPCs in Morrowind are much more numerous and verbose than in Oblivion or Skyrim. To some like me, the sequel games were downgrades in that regard.
What Google was "caught" doing was exactly what it was doing in non-incognito mode already. Anyone expecting the websites you visit to know you're in private mode and to not log data is just lacking basic tech knowledge.
It is silly that Google had to explicitly state that in the disclaimer.
It's reasonably detectible. And it wasn't about "websites" logging you in general, it was about Google in particular logging you, the same company that was making the misleading privacy promises. They deserved the slap over it. And it required a bit more than basic tech knowledge to understand what was misleading, it was a real problem.
"Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads and bookmarks will be saved."
Can you tell me how the original Incognito mode disclaimer was misleading?
Even if it is detectable it shouldn't be detected, why would I want websites to act differently when I'm in private mode?
And if it did block Google's services from capturing the same data as they capture in non-private mode it would act as a sort of ad blocker, why should that be a function of private mode?
"privately" was off which is why it says "more privately" now. The combination of "privately" and "chrome won't save your history" isn't a good enough way to explain that the rest of Google is actively countering your attempt at privacy.
> why should that be a function of private mode?
Because it's the same company that was promising the privacy.
>"privately" was off which is why it says "more privately" now
The actually significant change is the addition of "This won’t change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google."
Which was obvious to anyone with basic tech knowledge already.
>Because it's the same company that was promising the privacy.
But WHICH privacy? It never promised that websites won't know who you are, you can still login into websites, you're still in the same IP. Should it automatically disable all cookies and route you through seven proxies so you can be truly "private"?
The part about not collecting data. The kind of stuff chrome.exe is still doing.
I don't even agree it was obvious to anyone with basic tech knowledge that google.com would still super aggressively track you. Third parties yes, but not google itself. That was a policy decision they made. (Any 'how could they know' is post-hoc justification far more than real technical problem.)
Thank you so much for asking the question instead of assuming an answer.
I don't think I have an ideological limit. I'm pro weighing alternatives, and seeing what happens. If law enforcement misuses the tools they are given, we should take them away again, but we shouldn't be afraid to give them tools out of fear of how they might misuse them.
I think my limits are around proper governance. Stuff like requiring a warrant are hard limits for me. Things like sealed paper trail, that are too easily kept away from the public, are red flags. So long as you have good ways for the public to be informed that the law isn't working, or being misused, I don't have many hard limits, I don't think democracy really allows for hard limits.
At the very broad level. I believe that Big Tech (Meta, Google, etc.) are already surveilling you. I believe that government should have at least as much ability to surveil you as companies. If you are willing to hand over that data to a company, you should be willing to hand it over to your government (specifically YOUR government, not the one the company is based in).
The obvious difference is a business (Meta, Google, etc..) can at most refuse to do business with you. The government can throw you in prison. Therefore, it's more important to restrict what the government can do than what business can to.
yea I get a few companies have too much power. That doesn't really change the point except to argue that they too should be more restricted
Not only do I get slowdowns and some videos don't load at all at times, but I also get a notification that explains that the reason is using adblockers.
Here I am, totally given up on adblockers, and no way I’m paying for premium, but jesus christ the amount of ads I get, sometimes seems to be one every minute, making most videos unwatchable.
Though it’s mostly good for my addiction since it makes me use youtube less.
I had the same problem. Make sure you're running the latest version of uBlock Origin. By that I mean you should explicitly check for updates and install the latest version. That fixed it for me.
I've disabled adblock/vpn and can watch maybe 1-2 videos before the video player starts blacking out on each one. Only restarting firefox "resets" it and I haven't been able to find a reason for this happening. Time for yt-dlp I guess
Isn't this balloon video shared by openai? How is this not counted? For others I don't have evidences. But this balloon video case is enough to cast the doubts.
All of it?