Agreed, and I suspect part of what made it great is that it was being ignored. I love all the dubious new features it doesn't have, and the complex larger platform offering it isn't a part of.
People will keep saying it, because that ratchet only seems to go one way. Consumer access to general purpose computing is something we take for granted, but every year it seems like there's a bit less of it, and once we lose it we will never get it back.
I'm sorry, this seems egregious. I agree that it should've been off by default but I challenge anyone to read how the implementation works (not just the blog post and the FUD responses to it) before calling it a giveaway to the ad industry: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experime...
FF is currently a key tool in the fight to avoid a Google-top-to-bottom future, and before we start the meme that it's gone to shit we should be really really sure that's actually true.
It is ridicoulous. Why do browser developers cooperate with ad companies? They were supposed to protect us from them.
It gives no benefits to end users. Ad companies will not stop using old methods, they will just add one more method.
I hope responsible Linux distributions will patch this out and disable by default.
A fair model would be if this feature was opt-in and if Mozilla paid to the users who enabled it.
> The purpose of this API is to provide a privacy-first design for advertising companies to be able to measure how advertising drives conversions. That is, answering the question of whether advertising effectively achieves its goals, such as increased sales.
Not my problem. I don't earn anything from their sales.
It really is disheartening to see so many technically-inclined people berate the one browser that is preventing Apple/Google hegemony. The expectations set upon Mozilla and Firefox are so unrealistic it's laughable.
Firefox is rock solid, open-source, backed by a great organization (which has recently reinvested additional resources in it) and a joy to use imo. Also, the levels of vitriol that even the slightest bit of anonymous telemetry incurs is unhelpful and I encourage people who hold that viewpoint to really interrogate it.
While Firefox is great, they should not sell their userbase to Facebook with such proposals. If ad companies want to know about ad effectiveness, they must pay the users for collecting the data, not collect it for free without asking the user.
Ultimately, the problem is that entire premise is deeply offensive. I do not want my browsing history being monitored, collected, sent to third parties, and sold to marketers in any form period. I do not want a browser using my data in any way to support surveillance capitalism.
The implementation is just FLoC/Topics API all over again and it's still not compelling. The first kick in the teeth comes right at the start where the entire thing is predicated on data gathered from having an ad shoved in your face.
> At impression time, information about an advertisement is saved by the browser in a write-only store. This includes an identifier for the ad and whether this was an ad view or an ad click.
I do not want ads. Ever. Like many (likely most) firefox users, I go to some lengths to prevent them from showing up in any form. Now that firefox is going to be profiting directly off of firefox users seeing and clicking on ads they will certainly degrade our ability to prevent them.
It then involves sending my data to third parties so that it can be aggregated. Then my browsing has to be monitored to identify conversion events. None of this is acceptable.
Here's what their Cookie Monster paper says:
> User perspective. Ann browses various publisher sites that
provide content she is interested in, such as nytimes.com and
facebook.com. Ann does not mind seeing relevant advertising,
understanding that it funds the free content she enjoys.
I am not Ann. I very much mind seeing advertising, relevant or not. I do not understand that if funds "free content" I enjoy. If I need to be exploited to pay for something, that thing it isn't "free" and if it's infested with ads I do not enjoy it. The entire thing is based on a fantasy where users find this acceptable. We don't and it isn't. If we did, we'd probably all just be using chrome.
> FF is currently a key tool in the fight to avoid a Google-top-to-bottom future
Why should we care if Firefox isn't Google if both are just going to exploit us?
You're preaching to the choir, but even preaching needs to be truthful and I don't think calling Mozilla ad-tech or suggesting that it's just as bad as Google is remotely true. This is where "the perfect is the enemy of the good" comes from.
I mean, what do we have now? Google and a bunch of middle-man ad techs are hoovering up everything they can get, including a crap-ton of stuff that browsers can't affect at all, and wink-wink-promising that they anonymize some of it in some cases even though no one can verify that. A world in which the subset of that data that passes through a browser has been provably anonymized would seem to be strictly better, even if you still don't like it.
> You're preaching to the choir, but even preaching needs to be truthful and I don't think calling Mozilla ad-tech or suggesting that it's just as bad as Google is remotely true.
Mozilla is literally an ad-tech company. They bought and now own an actual ad-tech start up, they are partnering with Facebook to develop and implement protocols like DAP, and they are currently working on turning firefox into an ad platform that will deliver reports of people's browsing history to marketers in exchange for money. In what way are they are not an ad-tech company exactly?
I'll admit that they aren't as bad as Google, but they're heading in that direction and they've also only just gotten into the ad-tech game. It took Google a long time to get as evil as they are now.
Rejecting firefox because of Mozilla's new role as an ad-tech company and their insistence on exploiting firefox users isn't the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. Surveillance capitalism isn't good. Maybe standing up for ourselves and our values by saying no to spying from Firefox will cause Mozilla to look to other options. Even if it doesn't, it will keep us from being exploited and tarnished by our participation in their decline.
I've been a firefox user from the very beginning. My first browser of choice was Netscape. I hate that the enshittification of firefox is here, but I won't ignore it any longer. We still have a few alternatives like librewolf that provide the benefits of firefox without the recent corruption, and there's some hope on the horizon with ladybird too. The internet is only in the sorry state it is now because we've conceded too much to advertisers. We need to start holding ourselves and the software/services we use to a higher standard or it's only going to get worse. If Mozilla suddenly wants to be a part of the problem, I'll leave them behind while I look for a new solution.
Until they pulled this recent spying stuff I was a firefox user, but now I'm testing librewolf, zen browser, and brave. I might give Basilisk a try too. I'm also keeping an eye on ladybird but it looks like it isn't really ready yet.
Ultimately on the desktop I'll need something based on firefox because it can be hardened better than anything else I've seen and my work has me regularly dealing with some nasty websites.
I still have to find some options for mobile though.
Well, I wish you luck then. I still don't think PPA represents capitulation to advertisers in any significant sense, but I can understand why a purist would disagree, and certainly the fact that they get so much of their money from Google makes me fear that the extent to which they constitute a real alternative may dwindle or disappear someday.
> the warrant was issued because of his alleged failure to cooperate with the French authorities.
That would seem to be the key bit. Makes one wonder what level of cooperation is required to not be charged with a slew of the worst crimes imaginable. Is there a French law requiring that messaging providers give up encryption keys that he is known to be in violation of?
Relatedly, the author Robert Anton Wilson tried to manually implement a Markov-chain-bot in the 1960s by cutting up passages from various books, selecting them from a hat, and looking for overlapping words and phrase fragments. The best results were included in the Illuminatus! trilogy, some attributed to a character named Markoff Chaney.
Streaming was forced into existence by the invention of digital media. The ~20 years between the point where could stream and the point where we did stream seems in retrospect to be an artifact of having an entrenched industry clinging desperately to the concept of music as a physical product.
I would definitely take Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and so forth into account in hiring, if I had any faith in my ability to determine those things from the interview process without being fooled. But the only thing I am confident I can find out from a stranger under time constraints without being fooled is "Were you good at this job in your previous role" so I focus on that.
It so happens that toms recently tested this exact question (how much performance do you lose pairing a modern card with an older gpu, compared to the same card with a modern cpu). Full results at [0] but the short answer is that a $900 RTX 4080 gpu with a 2017 cpu will generally do 60+fps at 1440p in most games, but as low as 55 in a few.
Not super surprising for single player games since they're usually much easier on the CPU than multiplayer. I was not getting minimum 60 FPS in Warzone for example.
It's not that it would be embezzlement, it's that it pattern matches to embezzlement. People with purchasing authority generally can't choose vendors they are involved with because that's such a popular way to steal money.
Not to be that guy, but the article discusses this at some length. Find this bit:
> However, such tests rely on introspection and self-reported experience, which made some neuroscientists doubt that aphantasia was real. Could reported differences in visual imagery be a language disconnect, given the ambiguity in how we describe our inner worlds? “It could be the case that we’re all actually experiencing the exact same apple, we’re just describing it differently,” said Rebecca Keogh, a research fellow in cognitive neuroscience...
The following ~8 paragraphs discuss the evidence for it beyond subjective reports.
I'm not entirely convinced by it. But even if I was, I'd still stand by my claim that many people speak about this with unwarranted confidence. This comment thread has lots of people who seem to know for sure that they do/don't have it, and also several definitions such that I could easily self-diagnose in either direction by picking the right one.
