interesting, guess you were just lucky then. For reference, here's what it otherwise looked like, as both a SimpleLogin and Pass user:

On SimpleLogin, I have 164 aliases

On Pass, it only thinks I have 9

Previously, if you used the SimpleLogin dashboard or extension to create an alias, it wouldn't show up in Pass, but if you made an alias in Pass, it would show up in SimpleLogin's dashboard/extension.

This just means it'll now show your full list of aliases in Pass, regardless of if you created them directly through SimpleLogin, or through Pass.

I completely get your point, and to an extent I agree, but I do think there's still an argument to be made.

For instance, if a theme park was charging an ungodly amount for admission, or maybe, say, charged you on a per-ride basis after you paid admission, slowly adding more and more charges to every activity until half your time was spent just handing over the money to do things, if everyone were to stop going in, the theme park would close down, because they did something that turned users away.

Websites have continually added more and more ads, to the point that reading a news article feels like reading 50% ads, and 50% content. If they never see any pushback, then they'll just keep heaping on more and more ads until it's physically impossible to cram any more in.

I feel like this is less of a dunk on the site by not using it in that moment, and more a justifiable way to show that you won't tolerate the rapidly enshittified landscape of digital advertising, and so these sites will never even have a chance of getting your business in the future.

If something like this happens enough, advertisers might start finding alternative ways to fund their content, (i.e. donation model, subscription, limited free articles then paywall) or ad networks might actually engage with user demands and make their systems less intrusive, or more private. (which can be seen to some degree with, for instance, Mozilla's acquisition of Anonym)

Even citing Google's own research, 63% of users use ad blockers because of too many ads, and 48% use it because of annoying ads. The majority of these sites that instantly hit you with a block are often using highly intrusive ads that keep popping up, getting in the way, and taking up way too much space. The exact thing we know makes users not want to come back. It's their fault users don't want to see their deliberately maliciously placed ads.

A lot of users (myself most definitely included) use ad blockers primarily for privacy reasons. Ad networks bundle massive amounts of surveillance technology with their ads, which isn't just intrusive, but it also slows down every single site you go to, across the entire internet. Refusing that practice increases the chance that sites more broadly could shift to more privacy-focused advertising methods.

Google recommends to "Treat your visitors with respect," but these sites that just instantly slap up an ad blocker removal request before you've even seen the content don't actually respect you, they just hope you're willing to sacrifice your privacy, and overwhelm yourself with ads, to see content you don't even know anything about yet. Why should I watch your ads and give up my privacy if you haven't given me good reason to even care about your content yet?

This is why sites with soft paywalls, those that say you have "x number of free articles remaining," or those that say "you've read x articles this month, would you consider supporting us?" get a higher rate of users disabling adblockers or paying than those that just slap these popups in your face the moment you open the site.

During an three-year test phase, 48 panels will be added to a 100-metre section of track operated by transN, the canton’s public transport company, at a cost of roughly CHF585,000 (€623,000).

48 panels, for over half a million euros.

jfc, how can we let these people know there's tons of perfectly usable space for solar... literally anywhere else with less risk of being damaged?

Except we don't have any widespread evidence for cocaine being taken outside of highly specific medicinal cases being helpful to the health and wellbeing of the individual.

When it comes to gender affirming care, we have substantial evidence that proves it is safe and effective, as even a cursory glance at medical research on the topic will show:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(23)00118-7/fulltext

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1115753

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2789423

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/trgh.2015.0008

This is something I think would be the best solution. It seems like the best possible tradeoff between user privacy, and actual effectiveness.

Here's the link for anyone interested. And the campaign's page discussing it in slightly more detail.

The only way she was able to get life-extending treatment was to end her pregnancy, otherwise she would not have been able to prevent the brain cancer from likely killing her, making her not even capable of supporting her existing child.

In case you were wondering, they are charging $69, while saying you're saving "$100+"

They're also saying it's a limited-stock item with only 150 ever made. Sure, buddy.

They're also selling a pack of crappy trump-themed memorabilia, a plane model, a blanket that's supposedly "Trump" themed but has no trump branding, and a crappy electric lighter I've seen thousands of on Aliexpress.

I mean, there are definitely people in the government working on it, but those often require much more substantial reforms and systemic changes before the changes could functionally work. (i.e. banning data brokers would kill off most free services, or banning targeted ads would kill most ad-funded news networks)

If you haven't already, I recommend using the EFF's Action Center to let your representatives know about specific changes you would and would not want made to our laws to protect privacy, free speech, and digital innovation, according to what they've found to be the most pressing issues at the moment.

I envy that you think theres a material difference between how trump and kamala would handle Israel

When I look at both parties, I see one party that is substantially more fascist. Fascism, notoriously, loves furthering genocidal rhetoric, and doing genocidal acts. If I had to pick which party I think is more likely to provide a worse outcome to the genocide, it would be the more fascist one.

I in no way think either of them will magically stop the genocide, give Palestinians sovereignty, or stop destabilizing the rest of the world with conflict driven by global imperialism. But I have good reason to believe one of them will do substantially worse things in that direction, so I will do everything I can to at least make sure that person doesn't get into power.

I truly hope you are capable of telling which party represents each possible action.

you weigh a potential genocide as more than an existing one.

I do not. Kamala is substantially less likely to do a genocide on American soil, compared to Trump. Trump is substantially more fascist, and is much more likely to continue endorsing and funding the Israeli-Palestinian genocide.

It's not as if Kamala is going to keep supporting the genocide of Palestinians, but not do a genocide in America, but Trump will stop the genocide of Palestinians, and maybe do a genocide in America instead. He'll just do both.

And considering Trump's rhetoric, I wouldn't trust him to handle the genocide of Palestinians better than Kamala. I see the option that has the least (but not no) negative effects as voting for Kamala. I do not want to, but I sincerely do not want Trump in power even more than that.

People keep making more people, so who builds their houses?

Developers. If there is more demand in a market, they will build property, then sell it to whoever is willing to buy, or, will seek funding from an existing institution, which if it's not landlords, will be housing cooperatives, then use that funding to finance new buildings. Traditionally, when we're talking high-density housing, the buyer of these properties is a landlord. Without that landlord, the demand still exists, and someone, or some group of people, will inevitably fund the cost of the housing. In a world with no for-profit landlords, housing cooperatives fill in the gaps. (primarily for high-density housing specifically)

Either existing cooperative members come to an agreement to pay slightly higher rents in order to build up a fund used to later purchase and expand their pool of housing, (which later increases the benefit they receive from economies of scale, and reduces risk of a major issue in one building causing a lack of revenue altogether) or a new cooperative is formed with money pooled from members, and once a specific threshold is met, they collectively purchase the property.

Housing is a good with inelastic demand. Everyone needs housing. There will always be someone, or some group of people willing to buy. And if you don't have landlords to artificially increase the price of housing, which only goes up so quickly because of its commodification, and further purchasing by for-profit landlords, then the overall cost for a cooperative to outright buy a new property, or for a new cooperative to raise the funds required, is substantially lowered.

Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you

Your rent is quite literally paying for the maintenance. You think landlords are just losing money on maintenance out of the good of their own hearts? Of course not, it's just all bundled up and averaged out into one price with your rent.

owning a house would basically anchor me to one location, which gives me less flexibility as a digital nomad.

Cool, that's one of many benefits of housing cooperatives. They can act similarly to a landlord in terms of you sharing the cost of repairs with the whole building, which reduces risk, and they don't have a profit motive, since they're non-profits, so rent is lower than with a landlord. Some even let your rent buy you equity in your unit, which you can then sell later to get some of your money back if you decide to move, much better than the for-profit landlord that will give you nothing. The only issue is, these cooperatives are repeatedly outbid by corporate landlords, which means there's far fewer of them than would be ideal.

Additionally, I've seen some startups like Cohere that seem like they'll eventually be able to give you even more flexibility, allowing you to move between units in various locations without having to sell the old one or file annoying paperwork to start a new lease, with at least somewhat cooperative ownership. (although, of course, this is a for profit company, which isn't as ideal)

I can definitely understand wanting flexibility, but there are ways to get that which don't involve overpaying to a for-profit landlord. I can understand not caring much about equity, but of course, that's why non-ownership housing cooperatives exist.

But to actually make those things more widely available, you need to reduce the market power held by for-profit landlords. If they did not exist, these alternatives, primarily the cooperatives, could fill back in the gaps, but provide lower prices, better service, actual equity for those who want it, and still keep the flexibility you get from renting.

And the main factor driving down payments is housing prices, which are driven by landlords. Less landlords > less scarcity > lower prices > lower down payments.

On top of that, housing cooperatives exist, which can provide the benefits of renting (lower monthly payments than a mortgage, economy of scale for repairs & construction, less financial liability for the individual) without the negative effects of a for-profit landlord. (you progressively own more of your unit over time instead of never owning any of it, you pay lower monthly rates than you would to a for-profit entity)

They even have different ownership models, which could give more choice for pricing. For instance, the non-ownership model means you pay a lower rate, just the cost of continuing the providing and upkeep of the housing, with no additional profit margin, but you don't end up owning any of the unit you live in. But the ownership model means often paying a bit higher pricing, but in turn, getting to actually own the unit you live in, and later sell it off if you wish to move. (some cooperatives have caps on how much higher you can sell it for compared to your purchase price, others do not)

But in the end, the one thing that makes housing more expensive, that outbids cooperatives for housing, and that increases the scarcity of the market, is for-profit landlords.

The only way you get any true positive change on down payments, housing prices, or housing availability, is to completely ban all for-profit landlording.

Trump will visit the state for a third time this week on Sunday to “work the fry cooker”

Trump is scheduled to attend the Steelers-Jets game in Pittsburgh on Sunday

Probably won't be a long shift, 'eh?

The main issue for a lot of people is a lack of good third places.

Combine less and less free time outside of work, with higher nationwide costs affecting access to third places that you would otherwise congregate with people in, (i.e. cafes, bars, clubs, etc) and you get people who, while probably somewhat outgoing, are unable to actually be outgoing, since there's not a good place to express that in.

TLDR for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole post:

• Passkeys are a thing you've probably seen replacing passwords for logins. They are, generally speaking, more secure and convenient to store.
• Currently, there's no standard format, so it's hard to, say, transfer between Bitwarden and 1Password, or between your browser keychain and Bitwarden.
• They're working on a standardized format to store and transfer passkeys, to avoid vendor lock-in.
• The new standard would also improve the security of transferring logins. Current mechanisms use an unencrypted csv file. This would likely involve an encrypted, direct transfer.

so basically I'm being forced into trial.

Sovcit finds out what the law is for the first time (heartbreaking)

Of course, we can definitely agree on that. Liberals don't seem to understand that voting Democrat isn't the end of the road for positive political change.

But of course, if liberals have no power at all, then changing their mind won't exactly lead to them doing any action in the end anyways. Regardless of how stacked the deck is, voting Democrat at least won't lead to as bad a result.

I think most third party voters just assume Dems want to earn their vote. They don't. They want to earn the vote of undecided people, and republicans that are still somewhat open to another side. It's the whole reason the Dems are as center-right as they are.

They won't see people voting third party and go "Oh my god, we need to get these further-left-than-us voters to agree with us!" They'll go, "We need to pull moderate voters in the swing states that actually dictate our elections over to our side, not only giving us a vote, but negating a vote for Trump too!"

You can check out the other comment I wrote in response to a similar response here, but I'll give an additional short answer here too.

The point of buying extra time is to increase the chance of any other action being taken against the right succeeding. It doesn't matter what that action is (although I did give a list in that other comment), and that's not what my comment was originally about. It was solely about the fact that voting for the lesser of two evils is objectively better than letting the worse of two evils have a higher chance of getting into power.

Harm reduction doesn't work as a long-term strategy on its own, but not doing it just means any other politically beneficial action you want to take is less likely to succeed, since there's now an even bigger fascist in power.