How it’s been going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QbBc3Oduc8

I see, thanks!

Thanks Dessalines!

Fascinating, didn’t know moderators could investigate such things effectively (I was unaware of any mod tool that made that easy to do).

Its early so I only had time to take a cursory glance and the vote counts were still looking the same to me - which one had the votes removed after your report?

Good to hear nonetheless, definitely felt something was up, thanks!

To make it clear what I am talking about - I would expect any voting distribution for 16 votes to be at least semi-random on a controversial comment, in example such as this:

However, the distribution as it occurred looked like this on the first 16 votes:

A controversial comment will have such a ratio, but any comment controversial or not will almost never have this kind of distribution unless there are multiple accounts waiting for vote up events to occur so that they can send a vote down.

I can believe this happening 2, 3, even 4 times by chance, but not 8 times.

I’m entirely aware, I’m specifically referencing my top level comment which at the time had no replies.

Additionally, what you are describing does not explain both a vote up and vote down, occurring at the same time 8 times consecutively, so I’m not quite sure I understand what your point is as what actions occurred prior to hitting the button doesn’t enter into what I’m describing as far as I can determine.

Even if people read a thread before scrolling back up and hitting the up or down button, them hitting that button at the same time as someone else hitting the opposing button 8 times in a row within a few moments of each other is still a statistical anomaly.

See my other comment in which I graphed what I am talking about in order to better explain myself.

As I said, certainly possible, I was just surprised by the distribution over time, not the distribution of vote type.

Yes, it’s true that some good things have been added, I suppose my concern is just that I feel the negative things in the case of firefox hold greater weights when compared to the positive things they have done.

As a euphemism; a cruise ship adding a bowling alley, better seating, and fine art to its interior is neat and might make it look better and more convenient but it doesn’t mean much to me if they also added an engine which spews 50% more pollution into the atmosphere and poisons me.

Certainly possible but I’m sure the odds are astronomically low. After I saw this happen 3 times I started refreshing every minute and each time there was a change, both counts had increased, and this happened 8 times in a row. I could see a distribution happening of something like a vote up at minute 2, vote down at minute 3 vote up at minute 12, vote down at minute 20, etc, but this was - vote up and vote down at minute 5, same thing at minute 11, same thing at minute 16, etc, 8 times concurrently (the minutes listed here are an example, I wasn’t tracking exact time between events).

All I intend to say is that if I left when Mozilla thought it was a good idea to have an advertising company become involved in the development of their products and started tracking users without their consent (even if less invasively than cookies) with PPA, then surely I am not the only one who left.

This is a company that has previously sideloaded an extension into the browser without user permissions because of a marketing deal they made with a television show. As a result, I’m afraid im less concerned with the not-yet implemented features they may be working on or the features they have in place when there are a litany of other browsers available which don’t fuck around with user permissions and privacy for advertising deals.

If I wanted a browser for tab grouping and UI stuff, I’d move to vivaldi, but at the moment firefox just doesn’t seem to have the best UI or the best security and both of those are directly related to Mozilla’s choices.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and it is valid, but I think that my criticisms are also valid and are not baseless.

Perhaps if they made decisions like this more often in recent times there would be more people there when they do good stuff.

Edit: Cool to see someone botting this thread as well. I have now watched on three separate occasions someone vote up on mine and others comments only for a vote down to be applied within 10 seconds - 5 minutes in lockstep each time. This was in the first 15 minutes of the comment being posted.

2nd Edit. I’ve watched it happen 8 times now actually. I wonder what the odds are that over the course of ~2 hours there is exactly 8 people who agree and exactly 8 who don’t who keep showing up within moments of one another.

When faced with a firearm or a knife, any self respecting martial artist will tell you the one technique that will save your life.

Running the fuck away and or taking cover.

When it comes to hand to hand combat, understanding the dynamics of how to protect yourself and control the opposer like in Jiu Jitsu is very useful and can also potentially save your life.

But no, if they have a weapon of any kind, get the fuck out of there.

If your destruction is already inevitable because all of NATO is invading your country, then mutually assured destruction begins to look like a good option from the losing position.

For this reason I would argue nuclear war is plausible in the scenario.

You may also say “well the NATO forces may be looking to arrest you and not kill you so logically your best bet is to hold off on nukes”, but people, even leaders of countries, often don’t react rationally under extreme circumstances so there is definitely a non zero risk of nuclear destruction.

Downloaded because of this post, it is very good!

I’m not so sure about that. Windows despite its ads is still generally usable or at least readable, but adblockers affect almost every website, and in a much more extreme way, without which renders some websites virtually unusable. As someone else said, installing another browser is also far easier than taking backups, installing an entirely new OS, implementing your backups, and learning an entire new OS which may not readily support the software you have licensed from windows for most users.

Users care a lot about convenience. I expect that they weigh installing and learning linux etc as less convenient than the ads in windows which is why they would not switch, but I expect when it comes to this case, they would weigh installing a different browser with adblock as much more convenient than using the internet with ads on every single website.

Then invent the technology that makes what you want to do reasonable, otherwise don’t blame a drill for being incapable of hammering nails fast enough for you.

So the debate is about what words mean, but when asked to examine what any dictionary defines those words as to understand and agree upon their meanings, you fold immediately?

If the debate was about this, and I offered this to you, then if we follow your anecdote, it was actually me who lead you to the pacific ocean but then you decided to sit on the beach instead of swimming.

I guess you don’t believe your argument is predicated on facts in that case since you dropped it the moment you were faced with scrutinizing it against a reputable source.

Goodbye.

Go through a dictionary of your choosing and post the cited definitions of:

Ad hominem

Character

Attribute

Idea

Attack

Stupid

Intelligence

And I’ll prove to you by your own cited definitions why you’re wrong without going outside of the definitions.

I trust Merriam Webster if you do.

Please go ahead and explain what the difference is between calling a person stupid and calling a persons ideas stupid, given stupidity refers to a persons intelligence by definition.

If you call someone’s idea stupid, then by definition, you are calling them stupid by extension because that’s what that word means.

If used in a colloquial manner I can understand how referring to someone’s socks, or a device, or some inanimate object can allow one to call those things “stupid”, but the fact of the matter is that referring to ones ideas as stupid is redundant to calling the person stupid directly because they both refer to the intelligence and original thoughts of a person and therefore literally mean the same thing by definition.

Furthermore, the notion that saying for example “Your shirt is stupid” or “Your idea is stupid” or “your feelings are stupid” instead of “You are stupid” is not ad hominem due to the colloquial usage is laughable as a fallacious argument only needs to attack the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person rather than attacking the substance of the argument to be considered ad hominem, and if a persons ideas are not considered an attribute of them, I don’t know what is.

I think I’m pretty brushed up on how this works, but perhaps you should take your own advice, thanks.

If it provably disabled all functionality and features of the AI, then I would find that acceptable.