Comment on Why I recommend against Brave.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 weeks agogambling is bad - yet I support legalization
Got it, so being gay isn’t “wrong” or “invalid”, it’s just “bad”?
it is enforced unless you specifically opt-out (e.g. a pre-nup)
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. You might call it a “contract”.
Integration into the browser product, users, and marketing.
They don’t need Brave for that. They need the website owners. If you’re talking about injecting Axate ads where Google and other ads already are, then we’re back to square 1 where you’re ripping off content creators from their revenue for their content.
I’d love to be able to load up an account balance and click “view article” and the website owner sucks a few pennies from that balance or whatever.
The problem with doing that with fiat is that there are transfer fees. You’d essential be paying a $3 to transfer 5 cents. That’s why everyone uses crypto for this.
But like I said, users request features
Users can request features all day, developers are the ones who have to implement them.
bugs happen
It’s a completely unnecessary bug from someone trying to replace a perfectly safe and secure tool with their own and build value for themselves. This isn’t just any bug. Like I said, people’s lives can hang in the balance in a very real way. They need to get it right or just stay the fuck away.
the responsibility is on the user to pick the right product for their needs
Bullshit. Both are responsible.
Brave isn’t that product for at-risk individuals until it has been vetted by actual security experts.
Then they shouldn’t have launched it.
Eich did the first half of that
Not good enough.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I didn’t say that.
My point here is that personal views can differ from political policy views.
The issue is that it’s opt-out. Instead of that, people should opt-in only to the parts they want.
No, I’m talking about creating a protocol where browser clients can inform website owners that the customer is using this separate method of payment. It could happen separate from the browser (e.g. as an extension), but the browser gives it a lot more visibility.
The UX here would be pretty simple: if the user has enabled this feature, websites would prompt users for payment or to show ads.
Browsers win because they get a revenue stream, Axate wins by having more customers, and websites win because they’re getting paid instead of customers blocking ads.
That’s why you batch up transfers. General flow:
Boom, total number of transfers are pretty low, no need for cryptocurrencies.
Sure, but the browser vendor has very little at stake, whereas the user has everything at stake. At the end of the day, it’s on the user.
You’re welcome to your opinion. I personally don’t have an issue with how people spend their money, I only have an issue with how they treat their employees and choices they make about their product.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 week ago
That makes absolutely no sense. You would advocate for and even donate to political reform for something you don’t personally believe in?
No, it isn’t.
Nothing says more about who a person is than their political donations.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Yes. I believe in personal freedom, so I’ll support the freedom to do things that I believe are harmful like drug use, gambling, or prostitution. You doing those things doesn’t impact me or anyone else so it should 100% be your right to do it. In short, I believe principles should carry the day.
I may not agree with you doing something I believe to be bad, but I’ll defend your right to do it.
In the same vein, I believe governments should be as small as possible, and no smaller. The role of government is to protect me from you, and vice versa. It’s not to ensure I’m making good choices, in fact it shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what’s “good” or “bad,” it should merely enforce laws that protect people from eachother.
Does the government deciding which marriages are valid protect me from you? Not really, all it does is determine who can take advantage of certain benefits. That sounds exclusionary with no particular purpose, so the government shouldn’t decide that.
So I really can’t speak to why Eich donated to the prop 8 fund (or whatever it was). Was it because he hates gay people? Or because he thinks same sex marriage goes counter to the reason marriage exists as a government institution? Or something else? I don’t know, nor do I really care, provided it doesn’t get in the way of doing his job.
Lumiluz@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
First of all, thanks for calling out the bullshit of this professional far right fire hydrant apologist. You’ve stayed on track with the fire issue of their argument despite them wanting to hide attention away from it.
The reason their propaganda sounds reasonable is because it pretends to be rational and sounds calm, when in reality it’s ignoring extremely glaring issues. In one of these cases for example, it’s pretending that funding intolerance isn’t intolerance. Another is ignoring details, such as how the crypto scam was essentially malware, and did cause performance hits to devices using Brave (part of the reason why it was caught).
Second of all, for everyone following along this far, I just want to point out the false equivalency between something like hard drugs and gambling - things that literally statistically bring literal harm - to marriage.
And finally, we’re done entertaining bullshit in the tea - that’s why Teslas are burning. Remember that when shit hits the fan.