nilved

Welcome to late stage capitalism, folks.

We really need to get rid of cops. That experiment is over.

The second line of your post is answered by the first.

If I search for ruby gems, I probably want code. If someone else does, they may want actual gems.

So they search for "ruby gems" and you search for "ruby gems code." This nails in OP's point:

Insight: Google does not want you to know or remember. Anything, if at all possible.

This makes so much more sense. People are so lazy to type in their location that Google had to spend millions/billions of dollars on technology to stalk you and figure it out for you? I don't buy it.

You have a very narrow definition of "browser." Try xombrero, vimb, Luakit, uzbl or good old w3m.

The same site says virtually nobody, aprox 2-3% is using edge.

What? Do you know how many people that is?

Except anarchism, of course.

Google can break the Web because they own the Web. It's their platform. Maybe handing it to them wasn't such a good idea.

Are you white?

Anyone who agrees with this hasn't lived in Canada.

Use a block quote or something. Nobody wants this wall of text in the comments.

Does anyone remember why they decided to Digg V4 themselves?

I am doing that by downloading, parsing, rendering and evaluating the HTML and CSS. I'm not giving you arbitrary code execution. Do you want to fold proteins too?

I also think this is something Web people overlook. Our phones are _insanely_ powerful, yet almost all Web sites are slow-loading garbage: because of JavaScript.

I think it goes further than that unless you don't consider the documentation and standard library sufficiently encouraging.

ActiveSupport does that because Ruby encourages it.

Wow, that's seriously ridiculous. What a strange place.

The semantic Web is, unfortunately, quite dead. Hopefully a JavaScript-free Web can still happen.

Why do you have a hard time reading that? It's generally better to solve problems before they happen. An dead Web isn't coming back, and we are trending very much in that direction.

I've done all of these things since it's my job. I haven't tried Facebook, because I don't have any confidence in the surveillance hypothesis, but my first guess being inapplicable doesn't change the fact that root access would allow people to prove this is happening, and that hasn't happened.

Furthermore, this could be proven with some fair reliability using correlation only. Is more encrypted data sent when you're speaking? Is more encrypted data sent when the microphone permission is enabled? Does the app access the microphone while sleeping? Nobody has presented anything _close_ to evidence.

If you have root access to one end of encryption, you necessarily can inspect and save it. The way I would do this is by issuing a certificate for facebook.com that I mark as trusted on the device. This will let you do a man in the middle "attack." But you can probably do this directly on the device: just look for where the encryption is taking place, and intercept it.

Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State

There's an easy way to verify this: run tcpdump and record it happening. The fact that nobody has done this, instead only offering anecdotes, strongly suggests that these are coincidences or from other forms of targeting.

How is posting it clearly on their website minimizing the truth? As a reasonable person, don't you think that if they were trying to minimize the truth, they would just not include it like everyone else?

Which they are, for listing it at all. Complaining that the text is a slightly lighter shade of grey betrays that.

This is simply disingenuous. That's perfectly legible. Especially compared to the common practice of not posting it at all. I don't see how anyone can be upset at this.

This is fairly ridiculous. I'm once again ashamed to be Canadian.

I agree with this very strongly. I stopped donating to and recommending donations to Wikipedia when my edits were continuously reverted by an alt-right admin. I think we need to start coming up with alternatives, especially considering Wikimedia can't come up with a business model that supports their unnecessarily massive bureaucracy.

Don't be naive.

To the contrary, nobody has any morals or responsibility. Dial back the victim complex.