copygirl

joined 2 years ago
[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 37 points 2 days ago

That probably counts as a privileged page, as in something uBlock Origin can't access or modify.

Mozilla has probably been running another "experiment", meaning not every user is affected. In the past they claimed it's not advertisements because they are "continually looking for more ways to say thanks for using Firefox". (Bullshit.) If you go to Settings > Home, you disable anything you don't want to see, or just set your home page to a blank page, period.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Apologies, I don't understand. Is any modern Linux distro lacking "general usability" or applications? Anyway, for Bazzite, there's a bunch of ways to install software. (Though I haven't used it myself.) I'm also not sure what you're looking for when you're saying "support". Good documentation? A helpful community? Continued active development?

Just because there's a strong focus on gaming doesn't mean the distro would suddenly do bad at everything else, especially.. general home/office use. Linux is good with that across the board. I hope I didn't misunderstand. Please explain.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

JavaScript is already sandboxed. You can only execute functions where there is an actual API defined by the browser to do so, for example Date.getTime(). There is / should be no way to get, say, your device ID. (With the exception of unpatched exploits that allow executing arbitrary code. But keep in mind browsers are likely one of the if not the most security tested software.)

What you linked to here appears to specific to Google Tag Manager in a way that I don't fully understand, but is not related to how websites usually execute JavaScript code.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Can you link to a source that confirms this information can be collected with JavaScript (with browser comparison, ideally)? That seems outrageous if it was actually possible.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago (10 children)

What is meant by "sensitive information" here? Browsers can't just willy-nilly access your local files or something like that. The one thing I can think of is using JavaScript to collect information that can be used to identify you. (Is that "sensitive"? I'd put that in "identifying information".) My honest suggestion is to keep using NoScript and just allow as few domains as possible. The next best option is to stop using websites that break without JavaScript when there's no reason why they'd need it.

I can imagine there being a plugin that spoofs some common ways that allow sites to identify you cross-sessions / browser / websites without your consent, but blocking JavaScript (by default) is likely one of the best ways to reduce the amount of information collected about you. When you do find such a plugin, check out one of the "browser fingerprint" testing sites to see how unique your fingerprint is.

(That is, if I even understood the request properly in regards to the "sensitive information" bit.)

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

There is something called "local storage" that allows applications to store more information than just a cookie. Cookies are sent to the server, while local storage, as the name implies, stays local. (That doesn't mean that this data can't be sent to the server via JavaScript.) But local storage makes it possible to make 100% offline applications if the whole webpage is cached / downloaded (assuming no online functionality is required).

edit: As for deleting this, if I click on the lock icon in the address bar in Firefox, I have an option to clear cookies and site data for the current site. I assume the "site data" is the local storage I mentioned. If you're using a Chrome based browser, you can probably google how to do the same thing.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Harsh, to who? It only affects me. A community for sharing art (among other things) that allows AI garbage is not something I want on my feed. I want my eyes on real art that humans have put actual effort into.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Whelp. I could've looked at the source instead of taking apart the image. It says so, there.

I also checked the rules, and it says nothing about AI art. (Which in my opinion, it should be disallowed. Proper artists need to get that much needed recognition and support now more than ever.) Apologies for the incorrect report. I will just block the community and move on.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Yeah no, that's definitely AI. I spotted a couple of flaws and probably missed a bunch, too.

  • Left tree: Trunk is thicker further up than further down, the trunk sorta blends into the background.
  • There's a pole that's behind the buildings, unsure if connected, but out of place.
  • The closest pole has a wire coming from the right that's not connected to anywhere.
  • Also in general the posts have no consistent structure at the top.
  • The top window in the closest building doesn't make sense. It's connected to the edge on one side but not the other. There's some sort of sheet (let's presume it's in the room) that has a clear corner and white stripe at the bottom but then blends into nothing.
  • The curb on the far side of the crosswalk doesn't line up with itself.
  • In the middle of the picture, there's a tree that grows out of a building, and one that doesn't appear to have any leaves.
[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I have a bigender partner who identifies and presents more femme online and more masc in real-life.
However you feel about and choose to express yourself is valid.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hasn't it become standard practice for mass-reports on big social media platforms to automatically shut down accounts and content, with human moderators (sometimes) undoing such after the fact?

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I happened across a podcast episode that was about AI, that I was listening to with friends. I don't know if you want to take away anything from it but I figured I'd mention it here in case anyone wants to. Look for Serious Inquiries Only episode 477, "Debunking Bad AI Research, and Bad Coverage of AI Research". For you it might not be super interesting, since it's trying to explain the matter to those who might not already know much, debunking some bad studies, but towards the end they talk about the environmental impact. And this is with two experts, I believe.

One thing that pops up there is that training a "moderately large" model requires produces twice the CO₂ output of an average American over their entire lifetime. They mention water usage is really bad, too. And "moderately large" refers to what a University research team might be cooking up. Big companies have magnitudes more environmental impact from training their huge models.

(There is also a part 2, with the followup episode.)

 

Quoting the rule from the community for reference:

  1. You must follow the Egg Prime Directive. You may not push or coerce people into identifying or not identifying a certain way. You must respect them as the gender they claim to identify as. In addition it is extremely in poor taste to make assumptions about other people’s identities based on external factors, we understand it cannot be helped but it is best not to as it can affect the way you treat others in noticeable ways.

Honestly, I've been anxious about this for a while, not sure if or how to bring this up. I understand the importance of the rule when it involves real people. But I've been seeing comics and memes getting criticized of breaking the Directive a couple of times now. But aren't they just being shared from the creator's perspective? Making fun of their own experience, such as, looking back, pointing out how obvious things seemed? When you see any other comic making fun of some situation, that doesn't mean that applies to everyone. That's not the statement the comic makes. It's just something that may end up being, or having been, true for some people.

Am I wrong in feeling like the Egg Prime Directive is being invoked too easily when it comes to memes and comics?

edit: I hope this is the right place to make this post. (Also, technically, it's breaking the title rule? Are meta posts allowed?) To be fair, I don't recall where this has been happening the most, I've just seen it in my time browsing Lemmy and the many trans memes communities over the last few months. Also, note: The stickied post did not answer my question.

 

cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/13665271

Source: Furaffinity

 

I don't see a way to block individual users' posts from showing up in my feeds. There is no "Block" button on any user's page like there is for communities. For some reason I thought there was a way to do this before, but maybe I was just using another frontend? I see some users are blocked when checking my settings. I made sure to disable uBlock Origin to check if it could be an element hiding rule.

For the record these aren't rule breaking users or anything, but instead bots that automatically post things, some of them pulling links straight from reddit. I prefer my Lemmy being populated by humans.

Thank you!

view more: next ›