I know how MV3 works, thanks.

That’s my bad, i genuinely didn’t consider that someone who knew what happened would frame it as ublock dragging their heels and not mention the context at all.

The point remains that from the moment it was announced people have been claiming, usually with much hyperbole, that Chrome was trying to kill adblockers,

Along with a lot of people who rightly pointed out that a largely ad based company being in charge of the specification of a system that can limit the ability for their ads to be blocked is a massive conflict of interest.

Luckily for all of us, google is known for it’s history of forgoing ad revenue and corporate interests in favour of end-user happiness…so we shouldn’t worry about it.

…

I actually find it interesting that they managed to achieve the stated goal of preventing a certain class of malware extensions while letting adblockers still work (though I know it’s not a widely shared sentiment).

It’s not a widely shared sentiment for a reason.

Mind you, I still preferred living in an MV2 world, and I still encourage people to switch to Firefox.

fair enough.

It’s better for everyone if the ecosystem is more diverse.

Agreed as a general principle, especially in the mid to long term.

But if the diversity aspect introduced to 70% of a population is actively hostile (with historical indications that future aspects will also be hostile) then dismissing concerns about it as hyperbole is face-eating leopard territory.

Oh man, your mod history is exactly what one would expect from a nuanced take like that.

Congrats on the consistency though, don’t often see dedication like that these days.

Can be synonymous, isn’t always.

Though my question was about what you thought rather than the word choice.

Ah, yeah, I’ve seen that.

There are also people who want to run locally for other reasons as well.

Privacy being a big one, but there are others.

I’m not sure what the ratios are though.

Incoherent ideology ?

uBlock created an entirely different implementation of their extension to work around as much of the bullshit lockdown that MV3 implements.

Adguard (and ublock origin “lite”) work exactly as much(or little) as google thinks it can get away with right now.

MV2 VS MV3 is much more of a change than just the stuff relating to ad blockers, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that a company that makes a large proportion of their revenue through advertising was in full control of the specifications for the “new” MV.

Honestly, my argument here isn’t even about the science, gravity was just the example that was used in the response to which I was originally replying.

My point was theoretical <thing> was possible in both subjective and objective variations of <context>.

Good spot, i should have said “truly believes” instead of “claims”.

Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.

I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.

Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I’ll be specific though so it’s clear.

The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn’t necessarily be a binary on/off.

in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.

in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.

The systems I’m talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.

Which , again, brings me back to:

There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth

For completeness, I should have probably said:

There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth ( using the exmples of subjective/objective truth as proposed by the person to which i am replying )

That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!

Agreed

As an aside:

You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.

What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.

Opinions and humour aren’t mutually exclusive.

That you personally don’t find it humourous doesn’t necessarily mean it lacks humour.

If you want to complain about the authors political opinions, do that directly.

Pretending that you don’t understand how subjective humour works instead of saying what you mean is weak of character.

Unless you genuinely didn’t know humour can be different for different people?

Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?

Scientifically, maybe? Because that’s what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.

But let’s assume yes for the purposes of this reply.

If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject.

And context.

Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.

For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth.

That’s a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.

But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.

That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.

There’s a big assumption there that this is a binary.

Gravity control, doesn’t have to be binary.

It doesn’t even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.

But let’s say it’s magic, direct control.

In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off fully.

In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is conceptually true.

Which brings me back to:

There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.

Emphasis mine.

Subjectively?

I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*

Yeah…

Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.

Not really…to any of that.

There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.

An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.

Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I’m not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that’s within a fixed system or not.

Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it’s not a given.

The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.

Yep, that’s why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.

I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.

The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.

I also doubt you’ve met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.

It’s entirely possible, but unlikely.

Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.

They came in hot, you go at it, zero problems with that from me.

All I meant is that you should go at it with actual arguments.

Even if they are objectively incorrect, responding with deflection and fallacy makes your position look weak, like you don’t have an actual point.

Utterly aside from the general content of this thread.

I know nothing of the pieces printed or their leanings, nor is it relevant for the purposes of this response.

That argument is the weakest of sauces, drizzled over a disappointing bad-faith steak.

A single article doesn’t define a whole paper (nor was that claimed).

A papers’ reputation doesn’t give them a free pass for printing something outside of their normal editorial quality control.

Argue the actual claims, this bad faith deflection bullshit is fooling no-one.

Fucking what?

A Piranesi stop motion film? Based on the book?

Not necessarily mutually exclusive

Labels don’t matter, be happy

Anyone else seeing an older, rounder Michael Cera?