Vivaldi is Chromium based, that’s like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

There are plenty of Firefox forks that will be actively removing the AI crap. Waterfox, Pale Moon, Librewolf, Zen, Floorp to name a few. And these will all continue to support Manifest v2 and therefore adblockers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_browsers_based_on_Firefox

Does this mean that people will finally stop posting that stupid “sir, this is a Wendy’s” line?

I do that a lot on my phone but keep forgetting it’s a thing on desktop for some reason.

Firefox. I’m fairly convinced it’s something to do with UBO or one of the blocklists but I’ve never taken the time to dig into it properly.

You’ve reminded me of a similar frustration that I’ve never found the answer to - though it may be adblock related - in that whenever I open a link to eBay it completely wipes the history for that tab. Or possibly it opens a new tab and kills the parent. Either way I always forget about it until the next time and then it drives me mad all over again.

you’re absolutely making things up

I could tell you what I see but you wouldn’t believe me anyway.

I was trying to show that not everyone perceives the world around them in the same way, and most people find it fascinating when they take a step back to really think about it. But you’ve already decided that simply not being able to see colors in the same way as you makes me inherently wrong, so I’m not going to engage any further.

Yes I understand the meme and I’m not trying to get into an argument. I’m just trying to educate as to why relying on color as the primary differentiator is not a solution to the problem as proposed.

at a glance, color is a much faster tool we use to identify these icons

Think about what you’re saying here, and consider how ridiculous it would sound if you said that to someone who was completely blind.

Sure, to a “color normal” person, something’s color is a great differentiator, but even when using a colorblind friendly pallette it’s just far easier for us to distinguish different shapes than colors. We’ve spent our whole lives adapting to a lack of color information so asking us to be able to work purely on color alone is like asking a blind person to see.

Again, and this part is really important and oft overlooked - this applies even when a designer has gone out of their way to choose a colorblind friendly pallette. It’s just not that easy for us. I honestly couldn’t even tell you what Google’s corporate pallette is without looking and I’m sure that information is second nature to normies.

Nope. The icons are honestly good enough as they are, but the original post was being disingenuous in suggesting they’re no more distinguishable than squares.

Running with that logic, having each square a different color does not solve the problem for those of us who can’t easily distinguish those colors.

Yes, but the original post is suggesting that they’re ambiguous enough to all be squares. Running with that concept, making a bunch of squares different colors doesn’t fix the issue for those of us who can’t easily identify those colors.

Except that the original post was contesting that those shapes are indistinguishable from each other. My point, therefore, is that the solution offered in the post I replied to would still be indistinguishable to 300 million people.

Problem solved! If we ignore the world’s ~300 million colorblind people.

Never named any of my cars until we got an ID4. It is called Heidi.

Neither does the BBC’s couch to 5k app, for who knows what reason.

You are a legend, thank you!

Any chance of a link to the clip?

Some of the very first ones were great; Trevor the vampire, and the one that birthed Homsar (possibly the very first one?). Stuck with it for all the classics; lightswitch rave, Trogdor, teen girl squad, 20X6, Sweet Cuppin’ Cakes (I still bring up Eh, Steve! to this day).

Eventually they started getting longer and longer and lost a lot of the punchiness and I stopped watching.

I think my favourite is probably Trogdor. The way Strong Mad has just carved ‘DAGRON’ into the table always makes me chuckle for some reason.

It’s the same in the UK but “legal tender” doesn’t mean what most people think it means.

When you buy something from a shop you’re technically offering to enter a contractual relationship for the purchase of said goods. If the shop agrees to your terms, including how you’d like to pay, then the contract is ratified. If they don’t accept your preferred method of payment then there is no contract of sale and there is no debt to be paid.

This is also why shops don’t have to honour pricing errors; when you bring the item to the checkout you’re technically just offering to buy it for the listed price and they can choose to reject your offer.

Dillon, you son of a bitch you piece of shit!

I’m not saying Telegram is perfect by a long shot, and they’ve made some questionable decisions around crypto and paid-for services, but it grinds my gears when people suggest that it’s “unencrypted”.

E2E encryption means that yours and the other person’s device are the only ones that have the keys for decryption and are typically the only places where chats are stored.* The conversation is secured end-to-end.

Telegram has the master copies of your chats on their servers to enable certain extra functionality that you can’t get with E2E messengers, but it does not mean that the data is stored or transmitted unencrypted. The data at rest is encrypted and it’s encrypted when it travels to and from your device.

Sure, there’s the argument that governments could compel Telegram to hand over the keys to your chats, but considering that the platform is outright banned in more than one country with questionable regimes, it’s reasonable to conclude that they don’t give in to such demands. Honestly, if your government wanted copies of your chats so badly it’d be far easier for them to go through you and your device directly, and then no amount of E2E encryption is going to help you.

All that said, Telegram does actually have E2E encryption in the form of Secret Chats which, while having no method of backup, allows you to have two very different conversations with the same person and provides a level of plausible deniability that E2E only platforms cannot.

*Until you or the other party chooses to export a plain-text backup and store it on Google Drive where it’s far easier for governments to subpoena. I’m looking at you, WhatsApp.