Interesting thread. But I don’t understand why the data needs to be collected and correlated by a third party, can’t the ads themselves detect views and clicks? (that’s what they need right?)

Or am I missing something about the process?

My colleagues having a chat about their favourite tv shows in the operations channel at 7am have entered the chat.

It’s pretty common for corporate stuff (legal or otherwise) to start with no payment changing hands, just a contract. Then an invoice lands either monthly or on completion afterwards.

That makes it easier for the work to actually start (otherwise you need to engage the finance dept up front and they’re often slow), and once the contract is signed and the work started that’s the sales process complete.

“Winning” is like making it to max level in a mmorpg. It’s not the end but it is the beginning of the endgame.

Best of luck with that.

I mean I’m still out here rawdogging usenet without a vpn. I keep waiting for the great crackdown on usenet but it never comes… Surely that comes before any VPN crackdown.

If you’re making a mil a year in revenue there’s a good chance your profit margin is tiny and licensing fees could obliterate it.

Omg they’re going to get n-bombed by a 12 year old to death!

I mean yeah basically. Same as if you have anything illegal.

I mean. The short term solution is to ban them.

I get the concept but the downside of banning sales without banning ownership is it will have zero immediate effect, risks creating a black market in the short term. It may even increase the demand for those dogs (see the increase in gun sales in the US when there’s a threat of legislation).

So I can’t imagine any reasonable government supporting that approach.

The issue with pugs is not that they’re evil or bad creatures, it’s that humans have selectively bred them for their looks, but that’s lead to the animals suffering because their breeding means they have massive problems with breathing, their knees, spine, eyes, etc. That’s unfair on the animal.

It’s like saying we want to eliminate genetic diseases like Down’s syndrome or Haemophilia. Nobody’s saying individuals with those conditions are bad, it’s that we don’t think people should be born with conditions that give them a worse life.

Now for dogs it’s a bit more complicated because those conditions are afflicted upon them by us purely for aesthetics, and if dogs are banned that inevitably leads to some being killed which isn’t very fair on those animals, but if we can’t find a way to reverse the worst aspects of their breeding is the only way we can prevent further suffering.

Well the black market doesn’t exist because it’s not legal to own a pitbull - as you say, who wants a dog they can’t take outside?

My point is if you ban breeding but you don’t ban owning the dog then you risk creating that black market.

Some of them, yes. They didn’t go hunting them but any complaints or incidents or they find one when investigating some other crime then you can be sure your pitbull would be taken away and destroyed.

I don’t think owners got prosecuted or anything as long as the dog was born before the ban, just the dog taken away. Breeders that continued selling them certainly did get prosecuted though.

The problem with “don’t ban them but don’t let them breed more” and allow people that have one to just carry on is you just create a potentially lucrative black market for these dogs (in fact you doing that might make them more sought after), which doesn’t actually fix any problems.

Not necessarily advocating killing animals because they’re inconvenient but ultimately if they’re going to be a problem (and it certainly seems like that’s the case) then the sooner they’re banned the less harm is inflicted overall.

I tell you what, if we specifically genetically engineer people to be aggressive and powerful and they start eating toddlers faces then I’m cool with banning them too.

“Dog racism”, fuck off.

I mean it sounds like just the one, American XL bully. Seems perfectly reasonable to me given how ridiculously powerful these dogs are makes them extremely dangerous when they’re being aggressive.

I am not sure how Manifest V3 is relevant here?

Because they literally tout security as one of the primary reasons for forcing it onto people.

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/

The first line is “A step in the direction of security, privacy, and performance.”

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/

“Manifest V3 is more secure, performant, and privacy-preserving than its predecessor.”

It’s the first thing they say.

If it doesn’t prevent a malicious extension from lifting your password in perhaps the most dumb and naive way I can think of, then it seems fairly disingenuous to describe it as “secure”.

Vitamin mineral very high number

Doing the lord’s work