But that's not a use-case being explored by publishers. They have absolutely zero interest in developing technology to let you escape their walled gardens. Every publisher wants you online, in their marketplace, whenever you want to play one of their games. The only use-cases that publishers are interested in are those that extract additional income from customers. There is a massive disconnect between what starry-eyed developers envisage for NFTs, and publishers expectations of what they'll bring to the table.

Utopian ideals of what "NFTs could be used for" is fine. But it's not a counterpoint to publishers invested in bringing NFTs to games, as they have no altruistic motives whatsoever. Furthermore, most AAA publishers are developing their own independent blockchain, handled entirely by their own servers. In this form, they're bringing nothing to the table that traditional databases don't (or at least, couldn't), and no better longevity when the servers are taken down.

Maybe if the doctor was sending that information to Meta. However, as the functionality currently exists, you are selecting and sending the information to Meta. None of the information the MetaPixel is collecting has come from your patient records, but has all come from what you've provided to the browser session. That you're choosing to share this information will be covered by the terms of service of both Meta and the site you're visiting (whichever it may be - in this investigation, they're looking at healthcare sites). There is no HIPAA violation here. What there is, is business colluding to capitalize on users ignorance for profit, and there may be other laws in some jurisdictions this falls afoul of, but not HIPAA.

100%, but he's comparing pirch to Discord in terms of functionality and saying "pirch didn't need scripting [therefore Discord shouldn't]", whereas the difference is, one's running in a non-specialised browser (Discord, requiring scripting for functionality), and one's specialised software (pirch, perhaps not requiring scripting, but rather requiring an entirely executable software solution). Thus, the comparison of "we didn't need scripting for animations back in the day, we had Flash", likewise, requiring specialised software on the clients end, as opposed to the modern solution utilising scripting in the non-specialised browser.

Fair enough, but in that case, you can just use Discord through your browser and completely avoid everything he's complaining about in his post. Discord existing, as a service which doesn't even require Chromium (although one can optionally use the standalone app which is built on Electron), is not the reason for anything Google's doing. It's misdirected hate in the context under discussion. I get the feeling he hates Discord for another reason, but he doesn't really elaborate. But since using the desktop app is completely optional, the reason he gives is nonsensical.

Oh wow, claiming running executable software is somehow less intrusive? You're still talking as if Discord is a standalone piece of software. It runs through a browser. You can get the desktop app if you wish to run it independently to your browser (which also adds the ability to have non-focused voice recording), but you don't need to run the Electron-based desktop app to access the service.

Your first statement is wrong. To run through a non-specialised browser, Discord requires scripting. Discord wouldn't function as it does through a browser with static HTML. Comparing it to an historic service which required specialised software to be running on your computer is kind of missing the point by a mile. It's like saying "we didn't need HTML5 and JS scripting back in the day to do interactive animations - we had Macromedia Flash!".

The desktop app is, which is why the very first sentence dealt with 'so don't use the app - you can still use Discord'. I'm not aware how these bugs in Chrome would impact my system using Discord via Firefox. SpiderMonkey's not going to fall over because there's a bug in Electron. (Or it may, but rather, that would point to a flaw in Warp/SpiderMonkey).

But besides that, the main point of the post was the fact that you can't have Discord without scripting; the very thing OP is lamenting, that they should have just made some basic non-scripted text messaging app. But they needn't; plenty of those already exist - the reason you use Discord is because you want the additional functionality Discord provides, which requires scripting.

It almost seemed like he was suggesting ("word on the street is") that Google was restricting information because of non-patched third party apps, and despite thousands of these existing, he places all the blame on Discord. It was a perplexing post specifically hostile to a single product in the universe of Chromium based services.

This seems a little misdirected. You don't need to use the Discord app - it will work through the browser of your choice. If there's an issue with that because the app provides some feature you don't get through the browser, then it suggests you're not after a 'basic text messaging app', but something a lot more - which is what Discord is. It's the very fact that it's NOT a static, refresh-requiring, non-scripted, text messaging app is what makes it a product.

You're kinda making a "have your cake and eat it too" argument - that seemingly want a product which has all the usability and features of Discord, but somehow do it with static HTML?

If it's the app specifically you have a problem with, then don't use the app - you can still use Discord.

And if its the usability and features you have a problem with, then don't use Discord - there's a billion other basic text messaging apps which, as you say, any first year programming student could write, so why are you even caring about what Discord does? It's only one of thousands of Chrome-based programs, not some kind of singular beacon on which Google bases all of its decisions.

Your statement is fairly nonsensical, suggesting you specifically wanted some reason to complain about Discord for - who knows what reason.

Since both pronunciations are in common use, both are fine. Determining there's only one way to speak is very prescriptivist, and not really how language works. I'd certainly concur that hard-G pronunciation is much more common thesedays, although in part because people are incorrectly told that any other pronunciation is "wrong". As long as the person you're speaking to understands what you're saying, the burden of communication has been met. Insisting it be pronounced one way or the other is trying to inhibit natural development of language. It's ironic, because the hard-G aficionados claim to embrace descriptivism to justify development of the word to a hard-G pronunciation, and then turn around and say that "since it's now settled, any other pronunciation of wrong!". Which, by demanding, is the opposite of the freedom of language they claim to be encompassing. Clearly, I possess a super-human ability to comprehend people using either pronunciation. ;)

How do you pronounce scuba? You're making up a rule that doesn't exist.

It's not really weird. We don't, as a rule, pronounce acronyms based on the pronunciation of their component words. Otherwords, we'd pronounce scuba as "scubber" with a hard U for Underwater, rather than as "scooba". And don't even get me started on how we'd pronounce the E in laser. We simply pronounce acronyms whichever way "feels" right - as a collective descriptivist movement.

The decision to pronounce GIF with a hard G is largely preferentially descriptivist - adapted as a hard G by oodles of people who first encountered the word, had never heard it pronounced with a soft G, and went with what sounds right to them. Equally, many of us who were around with GIF was invented often tend to use a soft-G, because that's the way it was described.

Neither is "more correct" from an English standpoint. Language adapts to how people speak, not the other way around. Some misguided folks will try to say it's "settled" that the hard-G is correct because descriptivism determines that the majority rules, which is exactly the opposite to how it works. Telling people it's "settled" and there's only one right way to speak is actually prescriptivism - the opposite of the position they're trying to extol. If both forms are in use, descriptivism happily encompasses that. A soft G like "gym" is fine. A hard G like "git" is fine. Both will continue being fine as long as the person you're speaking to understands you in context. It only becomes an issue in communication when that's no longer the case.

Really? In what form is the neon in Nevada? Neon doesn't have a solid form, and I'm not aware of any natural stable compounds, so I can only imagine its simply the gas trapped in some other minerals? In which case you still need to release, capture, and liquefy the air.

Definitely not mixing it up with Helium? (Which has lots of natural compounds!)

You take it from where it is, and you put it into canisters and sell those canisters to people who want neon from a canister, and don't want to have to liquify, separate and purify it from the air themselves.

This is being exploited in the wild. Timestamps are relatively a non-issue for certificates issued prior to 2018, which both of these are (likely why these two are those being used). They can be used to sign new binaries, and have been. Windows will not block them based on them using old certs. Time stamps on old certs can be used for verification, but as they weren't previously required, do not prevent execution. MS will need to issue a patch to block these specific certs.

Not really (ok, not even close, but I'm polite ;)) an accurate analogy, since how many games you own doesn't affect how many games other people can own, nor the price they pay for them.

And another instance of the word mark, albeit for a different product. This one only cancelled in 2018, What a shame they didn't hold onto it for a little longer - they could have prevented Facebook from producing a line of alcoholic beverages. xD https://register.dpma.de/DPMAr...