When kids grow up, they find their own keys and ignitions quite easily.

Quite a few find those things before they grow up.

The thumbnail had me thinking you made this on a piece of bread for some reason. I was thinking things like "Why would you ruin a perfectly good piece of bread instead of using a more traditional medium?" and "How could that possibly work on bread though?" Then I clicked it, and that's a really good river otter (and definitely not done on a piece of bread). The eyes are impressively shaded.

Paul can't sit at the same table as those other kids anymore, but he's the coolest of his new friend group, which is much larger.

Hot take

I think it's more that no one yet wants to sacrifice their life for the hope that their death is more than just a failed attempt to curtail the great evils of this world. The massive numbers of people who agree that "something must be done" is useless without organization and leadership. The surveillance state makes that next-to-impossible. Privacy is key in the ability of a people to safely organize, yet privacy (and proper OPSEC) in the modern world is more complicated/difficult than most people are willing/able to manage. I think that we will see a great suffering leading up to the great collapse.

the only useful thing he can provide is tax money.

Not true. He and a select few others are in the process of providing the great collapse.

What do you do when you, for example, go to pay your utility bills or plan a trip, and the sites required don't work?

Bills can be set for automatic payment directly through the bank or with checks by postal service.

Plan a trip? lol, I don't have the ability to do that, for many reasons.

I'm sorry to keep asking versions of this question

You're fine; I don't mind.

I know it's a joke but surely to post it, and after your other comments, instead of seeing this as a huge obstacle, you seem to see it as a blessing?

With regard to browsing the web, yes. Regarding potentially-useful services which disallow me from accessing them due to my disallowing them to run arbitrary scripts on my computer, that's disappointing, yes.

I'm far stranger than you realize. My stance on javascripts is only one aspect of me that's abnormal. I'm also transgender and try my best to protect my privacy in lots of different ways. Life has continued to become more and more difficult, and I live in a constant state of dread. I resent the world for doing this to people like me, for deciding that our suffering is not only inconsequential but mandatory. It doesn't have to be this way, and it shouldn't have to be this way, and yet it is. The world has decided that privacy is to die, and all like me are to go with it. But for now, I continue to exist.

Sorry for the bleak response. And in a meme thread no less ^^'. I hope I'm at least somewhat entertaining.

It has been a standard for quite some time to not load entire pages again if a user clicks on something or scrolls below visible area

Yes, and I hate that. The alternative gives me a complete page which is accessible with or without an active internet connection. The standard you like is a worse experience for me. Loading complete pages without javascripts is aways a faster and better experience than sites which hide content behind a javascript 'paywall'. I think I'll start calling it that from now on, because that's what it is to me, a javascript paywall.

I wanted to ask you how are you even using YouTube

I don't use GAFAM serivices. If I want to access content which is controlled by youtube (rare), then I use an invidious instance. If I want comments to load, I load the page with the tag specifying non-javascript mode.

I don't know man.

Please don't say that to me.

nearly all sites use it

Yep, and the ones that don't work without it are what I call broken, and those are not sites that I care to use.

I don't even consider people who have it disabled as I treat them same as bots.

To quote you: "This seems extreme."

But it's your decision, just like it's my decision to not bother with sites like that. I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me to comply, but that is exactly what makes me avoid a site. I don't put up with that sort of thing anymore. It's not worth my time.

Imagine saying "Windows is less secure than Linux, so I'm not going to make any of my apps work on windows".

Are you unaware of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and that there are plenty of developers who don't bother making things for closed systems like Windows? It's not weird at all.

It's like instead of dealing with it, learning how to be safer, etc, you're shutting out.

How am I not "dealing with it" ? I don't value sites which mistreat me, and so I avoid them. I am happier as a result. I have more comfort and self-respect, and I lose nothing.

From another of my comments:

Without javascripts, I get neat and tidy static pages that load super fast. I can have dozens of them loaded in separate tabs on my Librem 5 or Pinephone, which only have 3GB of RAM. It's nice and comfy.

With javascripts, I get a bad experience involving

• ads
• trackers
• cookie notices
• popups & overlays
• obnoxious "chat" features
• long wait times for everything to load
• new elements pushing other elements around as they load
• pages which automatically reload/refresh without my consent
• useless effects like blur which slow down the pages significantly
• "infinite scroll" pages which fuck up my calm navigation of the page
• poorly-designed pages which aren't easy to fix with things like web dev tools or ublock origin
• captchas
• etc. etc. etc.

I'm not seeking to convince web devs like you to design your sites to my liking, but you shouldn't expect people like me to want to use your sites if they're broken.

It's rarely ever worth it to comply with the demand to allow scripts, and I resent that it is so often a demand rather than a suggestion.

It's really just a matter of value. Odds are that I won't value the sites even if I comply, so I just don't bother (most of the time). Most of the web will continue to have all of the anti-features which repel me, so I'll continue with my avoidance. I've adapted to the way of things. I'd like to run some services myself one day, to add to the web in a positive way, and to host my own communities. I hope that day arrives.

I feel kinda weird replying since my comment to which you replied was removed by a mod, and I have no idea why, as there is no reason given in the mod log. I had been trying to respond to the messages which I was and am unable to directly access, due to my instance's defederation policies, but it seems that I've inadvertently upset someone and feel that I should probably stop interacting here, so as not to cause problems.

Thank you for your appreciation 🩷

Person A: "chromium-based browsers have superior security" Person B: "i use firefox-based browsers exclusively" Person A: "outrageous. it's got inferior security" Person B: "i don't allow scripts" Person A: "javascripts aren't a major security concern" Person B: "firefox with scripts denied is more secure than chromium with scripts allowed" Person A: "javascripts are required for the modern web" Person B: "untrue, as evidenced by the fact that i access the modern web with scripts denied"

checkmate ♟️

@cley_faye@lemmy.world Bugs exists. But JavaScript running in the browser have, theoretically, little access to anything. […]

The risk of allowing JavaScript on a website is more tied to the site data, or tracking. […]

It doesn’t mean every site needs JavaScript, but having this enabled by default is not that big of a security risk for the system. […]

This reminds me of an interesting phenomenon: Some security-oriented people praise the security of the surveillance-advertising corporation's browser engine (chromium), while proclaiming that gecko-based browsers (firefox) are unusable due to inferior security. Yet the main security threat I see is that fucking surveillance-advertising corporation which spreads unvetted and often malicious ads around the web without a care in the world.

@hirihit640@sh.itjust.works Just another piece of evidence that people care more about convenience than privacy, sadly. People aren’t willing to put up with a single broken website

Au contraire. Most people put up with broken sites all the time. The problem is that those people generally aren't aware that the sites are broken, because they're also unaware of the concept of allowing/denying javascripts. If they denied javascripts by default, they'd notice that most of the sites they access are actually broken sites. The ones that function without javascripts are the unbroken ones.

I made a really long comment answering those questions here.

I forgot how to properly link to comments in such a way that they will point to the comment on whichever instance is seeing them (idk how else to word that either), so I searched and found the link for your instance so it'll be accessible to you.

If you or anyone else understands what I'm talking about and know the answer, please remind me how to properly link stuff. <3

Edit: Oh yeah, and I suppose I can investigate Void-based distros to add to the list (I am a master-procrastinator and so it will likely take quite a while)

Consequently, Flock CEO Garrett Langley is now in full damage control mode.

It's interesting how this coincides with the news about the cases against Luigi, and I can't help but wonder if this CEO fears becoming like that other CEO.

The company is still trying to paint itself as the good guy

I find it very hard to believe that anyone in that company, especially the CEO, believes themselves to be "the good guy"

Þat one does seem to be þe best option for what I'd want. If/when I am ever able to get around to setting up a server of my own, I'll probably try to setup a sourcehut instance. And I'll probably try to upload a compressed svg here first þough, but I just need to double-triple check everyþing in it before doing so. I do procrastinate a lot, so expect delays. ^^'