[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This message is displayed in the browser because Google asked your browser to do it, and your browser got the message and put it there.

When displaying ads, the end user experience is 100% client-side. You are using your screen and speakers to observe it. You can turn off your speakers and screen if you want, which will effectively "block" the ad.

But that is silly. Not only do you own your screen and speakers, but you have control of what you're browser is doing, too (if you use a respectable browser). When HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and other content is downloaded, just that happened: file downloads. After it has been downloaded, your browser then consumes it.

When it is consumed, a lot happens, but ultimately, the code in the browser displays content. Your (respectable) browser does all of this, and will change the look depending on local fonts, accessibility options, etc. With an ad block add-on, it will also remove these ads.

However, when ads are removed, the DOM is mutated with deleted or replaced content. It is possible for a website to then write ad block detection scripts to see if the ad contents have been removed or not. There are many ways to do this, and this screenshot is the result of one way of doing it.

However, enter the cat-and-mouse-chase of ad block block blocks. You can block your ads, then block the ad block block like this screenshot. These types of ad block rules are less common, but many public ones are available. Check the uBlock Origin lists in the setting page. By default, only about a third of the lists are enabled, and these extra blocks are in there.

Another avenue of determining that ads were not loaded is for the server to inspect if client-side (you) requests were made to fetch the ads. Even if this is in place, the server cannot determine if you have actually watched the ad or not. It could try to do more client-side attempts at validating that you somehow displayed it, but again, that's client-side.

Imagine if you were sent a letter and a pamphlet in the mail. Imagine if the letter said that you could mail them back for a free sample of their product, but only if you read the pamphlet. They would have to trust that you read it, because you are reading your mail in the privacy of your own home. However, you could opt to toss the pamphlet (like an ad blocker) and never read it. It's your mail, your home, and your choice.

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 50 points 1 year ago

Remember that time when USPS leadership ordered the removal and dismantling of mail sorting machines in an attempt to make mail-in votes late?

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 102 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh hey, YouTube has a mechanism for that! Simply down-vote the video, and any future viewers will know that the video is likely ineffective because of the visible down-vote count that Google didn't remove to make more money from advertisements. They didn't remove it because they value the health of people suffering from cancer more than money. Good on them.

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 50 points 1 year ago

On a side note, I would appreciate it if it was opt-in. Ask when the profile is being set up. Don't be sneaky about it. I understand that this means less metrics for Mozilla, but consent is more important, imo.

18
submitted 1 year ago by Synthead@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

I am looking to ditch some PoE Ubiquiti hardware in favor of a DIY approach with 802.11ax cards. What card would you recommend for long-range 802.11ax? Are there gotchas when hosting with hostapd with some cards, like binary blob drivers, incomplete support, etc. that I should know about? Is there any reason I should avoid doing this? I will likely add omnidirectional antennas to this setup; what would you recommend there?

For what it's worth, Ubiquiti stuff is expensive, and lately, they have embedded ads into their Unifi controller software that you host yourself. I really don't like this move. I like the hands-off "appliance" approach to the APs, but they are still finicky, and I would feel a lot more at ease editing a configuration file than hosting a hefty piece of software that only runs on an obsolete version of Java.

4
submitted 1 year ago by Synthead@lemmy.ml to c/lemmyconnect@lemmy.ca

It's too easy to swipe "right" by swiping too diagonally on a post and close it. When it's closed, there isn't a way to go back to the place in the post you were reading.

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 46 points 1 year ago

Pull requests welcome

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The sad part is that inkjets aren't inherently bad. They're just a different way to print. They can make some fantastic, deep, high-resolution colors. It just so happens that this type of printing is being ran in such an anti-consumer way that it's borderline unbelievable.

Ink is cheap. It's INK. I can go to the art store and find thousands of different types of ink. It's just water with coloring in it. It's not special. However, HP sells their ink at a cost that is about 4x the cost of gold by weight. I can understand it being a little more expensive than just ink in a tube, but this is insane.

We should have inkjet printers that have caps on the top of the cartridges to let you add your own ink. No DRM. Buy common ink at the grocery store, and it'll work with most vendors. Open the lid, add your ink. Dried up? Wash it under the sink. Really dried up? Buy an empty cartridge for $6.

Our society has advanced enough to where this is a solved problem. We have figured out INK of all things. We know what ink is, and we know how to put it on a sheet of paper. Civilization hasn't been stumped on how to put ink on paper for decades, and it's not like we're in a position where only vendors like HP can save us. It's 100% greed, all of it, and it's so shameless that it reads like something out of Snow Crash or something.

Imagine if you bought a ketchup bottle from the grocery store, and refilled it with more ketchup when it was almost empty. Then, the ketchup bottle phoned home and figured out that you missed a ketchup subscription payment, so it refused to squirt ketchup. Ain't it silly when I compare HP's model to ketchup, yet both circumstances are literally dispensing a liquid?

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 67 points 1 year ago

Too many places let you drive if you do the happy path stuff right: stopping at a stop sign, changing lanes safely, etc. But the most important time of your driving is when you're about to hit a semitruck and you need to get your car out of the way, and there is no training material for this at all. People often panic and slam the brakes and aggressively turn the wheel, which is a perfect setup for understeer and losing control of your car. They are literally getting in a situation where they are about to die and they choose to greatly increase their risk due to negligence.

It's cheaper to run simulators than purchase cars and hire trainers. Get em in nasty situations and teach them how to get out of it. For real, if mom and dad can't evade sinking their freeway missile into a van full of kids, they shouldn't be able to get behind the wheel and be presented with opportunities where this might happen any time they drive.

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago

No see, you and all your friends wear a different color, and when you stick your hands together and proclaim your orientation, gay Captain Planet comes out

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago

A tool called Shaxpir creates a score sheet of literature, and many authors don't like that.

Saved you a click.

Also, down-vote click bait so it doesn't trend on Lemmy, please.

[-] Synthead@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 year ago

This is so deliciously hypocritical.

view more: next ›

Synthead

joined 1 year ago