derek

I have a deep appreciate for this level of discernment. Moderating posts and their discussions in good-faith and abiding by the spirit/intention of the rules instead of strict enforcement by letter fosters community trust and makes it more difficult to argue against removals/bans when they do happen.

Thanks for volunteering and keeping the lights on.

Honey badger shadow beings.

edit 0: words

edit 1: that is an incredible band name

That's not true for all sites. If the page is static then it'll have no clue. If it's dynamic and running a client-side script to report this info back, and if that information is collected, then I can see how that might be a useful supplement for fingerprinting if the server owner is so inclined. At that point though I'm wondering why a security-conscious user is raw dogging the internet and allowing scripts to run in their browser without consent (NoScript saves browsers).

Even then it's unclear when/how altering the page to render it differently is commonly communicated back to the server, how much identifying information that talk-back is capable of conveying, and how we might mitigate those collections (wholesale abstinence and/or script control aside). What are the specific mechanisms of action we're concerned about? This isn't a faux challenge for the sake of hollow rhetoric. I'm ignorant, find the dialogue interesting, and am asking for help being less dumb. :)

I found some brief and useful discussion in this Privacy Guides thread. Seems like the concern is valid but minimal for all but the most strict/defensive postures.

Trying to validate this myself for Dark Reader without breaking out Wireshark and monitoring some big tech site while I toggle color modes (which I might do later if I think of it and find the time) I see Dark Reader is open source, an Open Collective member, and seems to engender little hand-wringing. The only public gripe I can find is this misguided Orion Browser feedback thread.

Thanks for the interesting diversion!

How so?

Your closing sentence hints at the root of the misunderstanding here. It also fails to strengthen your initial claim at all. This study's Lay summary sets it out perfectly.

Many autistic individuals report feelings of excessive empathy, yet their experience is not reflected by most of the current literature, typically suggesting that autism is characterized by intact emotional and reduced cognitive empathy. To fill this gap, we looked at both ends of the imbalance between these components, termed empathic disequilibrium. We show that, like empathy, empathic disequilibrium is related to autism diagnosis and traits, and thus may provide a more nuanced understanding of empathy and its link with autism.

Autistic folks don't always exhibit the socially defined traits of autism. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right? So while your [claim] [double-down] [pre-emptive concession] [claim] ends with a claim that's reasonable it is also fundamentally disconnected from the initial claim (which is, at best, half-true). Social and non-social traits are additional dimensions on a complex spectrum. Defining autism only by it's more visible / stigmatized traits perpetuates the false equivocations of abnormal with disordered and disordered with diseased.

Sent with love ❤️

This is admittedly a bit pedantic but it's not that the risk doesn't exist (there may be quite a lot to gain from having your info). It's because the risk is quite low and the benefit is worth the favorable gamble. Not dissimilar to discussing deeply personal health details with medical professionals. Help begins with trust.

There's an implicit trust (and often an explicit and enforceable legal agreement in professional contexts (trust, but verify)) between sys admins and troubleshooters. Good admins want quiet happy systems and good devs want to squash bugs. If the dev also dons a black hat occasionally they'd be idiotic to shit where they eat. Not many idiots are part of teams that build things lots of people use.

edit: ope replied to the wrong comment

That wasn't the question, was unnecessarily rude, and not something you could possibly know. The only reason to post your comment is to wound a stranger. Your cruelty is obvious and you should be ashamed of yourself. Do better.

A speaker's public record provides context for their current commentary. Trump's tells us he is a bigot. Specifically a white supremacist. His recent rhetoric leans in to this. When pressed to clarify, justify, or recant these statements he either deflects or doubles down.

There is no reason to think he is suddenly well intentioned, operating in good faith, or otherwise deserving of some deference of judgement.

That used to be true. Speaking strictly constitutionally "invisible" is still a bit of an overstatement but not unfair. Regardless modern US VPs have some standardized additional roles (National Security Council member being the biggest one) and others assigned per administration which can and reportedly have impacted the administrations they're party to.

I'm not sure I take your point about Harris' invisibility in particular. She's set a new record in her capacity as President of the Senate by casting the most tie-breaker votes in US history. On the flip side she's drawn a lot of flak while working on the Central America Forward initiative (justified or not is a separate discussion). Her perceived invisibility isn't because she hasn't been getting publicly visible work done.

1. Her father is Jamaican.
2. Ultimately we all descend from African-born people. That doesn't mean all humans are Black.
3. Charlize Theron is African. She's not Black.
4. Black, as a label, is as much a shared cultural and countercultural identity as it is a familial heritage and racial identity.
5. Your position is misinformed at best, reads worse, and is a weird hill to die on either way.

How?