Good news, you don’t need any 3rd party software to do this, just like you don’t to connect to any Bluetooth device.

Maybe now with noise canceling?

IANAL, but idk, maybe explain some of this in the privacy policy?

nothing prevents them from removing this verbage from the project

Yes. They have demonstrated this much.

Which is convenient, because now when they decide they do want to sell your data, it’s fine because their privacy policy doesn’t say it anymore!

Man. I want to root for Mozilla, but they are definitely looking down the barrel of enshittification.

What does this have to do with planned obsolescence?

Wait wait wait.

Did they just violate the 3rd amendment?

Is that a BINGO or what?

Careful now, saying things like that might make you a fascist.

He just rephrased the post he’s replying to. In what way is he misrepresenting your stance?

“Works”

Just in time for the holidays.

discriminatory equity ideology

… are they trying to change what DEI even means in the process here? Incredible.

generally don’t chitchat with strangers.

Except on the internet.

It doesn’t cost anything in that situation not to talk, there’s no negative to it.

There is opportunity cost.

But just to be clear, your position is “don’t be the first one talking if talking to strangers, unless absolutely necessary, it’s too risky.”?

If this is not your position, please state it again, because this is how I read the comment I’m replying to.

In either case, please state what you think “the negative” that you are risking, or risking for a person on their behalf.

Your position seems to be that there is no risk so small that it wouldn’t override a potential win.

I am trying to point out the absurdity of this position.

If you can’t see the absurdity of this position, even with the silly parameters on it, then I’ll just ask this direct question:

How do you justify ever talking to a stranger? Surely the risk of a negative outcome is just too great, because there will always be some risk.

If this is not your position; state your position in similar terms.

Ok then how about it’s no money, but they have to hear about how they didn’t get the money, and so they feel kinda bummed out, if they don’t win.

I would feel shit about losing their money just because I wanted to gamble so I don’t do it.

You would feel like shit if you lost somebody a dollar? How about one cent? Even if there was a 1/1000 chance? Even if they stood to win life changing money on the other 999/1000? Do you think they would be upset?

Is no amount of loss worth any amount of win? If that’s your position, then how do you even get up in the morning? Why is this situation so different at the bar? Likelihood of things going badly in a bar are far far higher in my estimation.

you’re describing gambling

I’m describing basically every choice you ever have to make in terms of gambling, yes.

So you won’t even engage with my silly hypothetical?

If you don’t think that any amount of “gambling” is worth even the smallest amount of risk, regardless of the possible reward, then I think you are arguing from an indefensible position.

if you don’t do anything it won’t cause anything negative and they’re still free eo talk to you

Are they? They’re not bound be the same constraints as I should be? It’s a risk they should be willing to take?

I just wouldn’t want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.

You’re mischaracterizing things again. I never said I was doing this “because I wanted to gamble.” I’m doing this because I believe that the chances are quite good at having a positive outcome for both me, and the person I’m interacting with. I additionally believe that the chances of a negative outcome are exceptionally low.

You seem to think that both the odds and the severity of a bad outcome are so serious, that the positive outcomes shouldn’t even be considered. Despite a solid day of this conversation, you have only vaguely pointed in the direction of what these bad outcomes look like, or how likely you think they are.

I can infer that you believe it to be extremely likely and extremely serious. I can point back at some of the data which interestingly seems to have failed to capture such a scenario, but it’s still not clear to me that you’ve bothered to read any of the links with studies I’ve provided.

That’s because you ignore the possibility of a good thing happening, and/ or dramatically overstate the risks of it making somebody’s day worse.

Let’s start with a silly example. Let’s say you had $1000 in your favorite currency. It was given to you with the purpose of you giving it to somebody else. If you do not give it to them, the money disappears.

Would you give this money away? What if I told you there was a 1% chance that it would make a persons day worse?

If you’re not giving the money away, then at least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

If you are, what about $100? What about 10$?

I suppose so.

And you have no notion about gambling theory or risk reward whatsoever? Am I inferring that correctly?

That’s because you haven’t read them.

They have to do with the positive outcomes, which you continue to ignore, or treat as inconsequential.

A small chance of a negative outcome does not generally outweigh a good chance of a positive outcome.

youre almost insisting on talking

You insist on mischaracterizing my position. Asking somebody a question ir two is hardly as insisant as you keep making it out to be.

and that just seems odd

To you

Would you care to address any of the articles with research and numbers that I claim back me up?

I see you don’t understand the mindset. I don’t believe you are trying to.

I feel like you’re just reiterating your last comment as though you didn’t read mine.