Ah, so it’s a mutual block but initiated from one side.

Thanks.

Is…that not what’s supposed to happen?

I don’t have any other socials so I’m not too up on what the standards are.

How so?

IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.

old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Do you have an example of this ?

Feel free, if you can’t deal with counterpoints to something as basic as this, a full conversation is probably off the table anyway.

Based on what you’ve written it seems you’re assuming:

• Users will get any protections from this.
• That giving advertisers what they need is considered a win by everyone.
• Advertisers aren’t just going to do exactly what they did with the “Do not track” option.
• Attribution is the only thing they are using the collected data for.
• This will somehow disable their ability to collect fingerprinting data.

I’m not generally one for absolutes but i would put a significant portion of my current and future earnings on the fact that even if there was 100% adoption of this new privacy preserving by everyone in the world, advertisers would still be pulling some shit.

They would be performing elaborate privacy ignoring shenanigans because privacy gets them nothing and data is potential profit.

AdTech companies have a rich history of doing absolutely everything they can to profit from anything they can, it is naive to think they will so anything different in the future.

Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.

Various back and forth emails, a completely “justified” performance review program because of your “falling standards” and several meetings with various managers at different levels of “importance”.

Also the “You’re absolutely correct, ENJOY” is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your “redundancy” exit interview.

In this one instance they are actually losing their money, maybe, nearly a decade after the fact. Up until now he’s been living it relatively large.

I’d also put money on him still having a significantly higher amount of money to throw around, even assuming he loses the string of appeals and other legal bullshit he’s undoubtedly going to pull for probably the next decade.

Also money

For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.

Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.

Condolences on your loss.

Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.

Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.

What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That’s a win win right?

Interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all of that up.

Do you have any information on how easy the resumption of puberty is after that sort of delay?

It never occurred to me that this was possible and I’m interested in how it might work.

Labels aside, the only thing that post contains is a personal opinion, a personal anecdote and then an unspecific reference to something that may or may not exist.

Calling that an argument is a very generous interpretation.

The overview had no mention of a lack of support for “not transitioning” it’s certainly possible I’m missing it or it’s in the full report (which I’ll read when I get a few minutes).

One mention of the need for corresponding levels of support for de-transitioning and some mentions of increased support for other issues alongside the gender based ones.

It sounds like OP had a specific section/sections in mind, if this is indeed the report they were referencing I’d appreciate some indication to which part they were referencing specifically.

“The overview didn’t mention it, but its somewhere in this 232 page report” isn’t the most useful when trying to understand where someone is coming from.

The UK has recently done research on the matter and realised that children were not getting the support required for not transitioning.

Citation?

That’s reasonable