It's great that it works for you. I didn't try to convince you otherwise. We can all be happy that you are where you want to be. There's many people who have a different take than you.

I don't know about Canada but I haven't heard about Europeans doing this. That being said, if you have enough money, I think the healthcare is good in the US, so I wouldn't be surprised if some rich Europeans did that. But rich people are not a concern, they're going to be fine no matter what. For most people, US healthcare is bad, this is well studied. See for example this https://www.commonwealthfund.o...

This should be illegal by default for all employers, including for Facebook. There are boundaries to employment contracts, and that usually is because of the law. We still have human rights while working. Make it a human right to not be tracked to that extent, it is dehumanising. I realise this is unlikely to happen in the US but seriously, making this illegal is one of the best justifications for having a government.

Yes, that was my point. I'd rather be unemployed in Europe than struggling to make ends meet with two jobs in the US. Don't get me started on healthcare.

Including unemployed people

You make a generic argument for features in general. And I believe you have a point in general: companies shouldn't ask for permission before adding a "print" button to their product. In this particular case though, I don't think it is very useful to treat this addition as just one more feature. OP explains pretty well why this feature is unusual in its nature and in the impact it has.

Look at it this way: if the next version of Chrome starts mining bitcoins, does not make it opt-in or easy to disable for non-tech people and gives you 50% of any gain realised by this mining, will you still make the same argument?

I am not certain that this is the most useful perspective. Maybe cURL is just what the norm should be, the real issue being that a lot of software has bad development practices where it is privileged to develop new useless features quickly instead of slowly and steadily developing useful features. Firefox is mentioned further down and I think it is a perfect example. From that perspective, if Mythos is good at finding many bugs in Firefox, then it is just a tool to further enable bad development culture, by reducing some (but far from all) of the consequences of these bad practices.

The more likely scenario, based on exit polls, is that the husband got dumped because he voted for Trump. And Trump has eroded women's rights and downplayed the domestic abuse of women by men. If you're a woman who lives with a man who voted to reduce your rights, why exactly does it not make sense to leave that man?

Counterpoint: a unique solution also means only one workaround to find around it.

There is an issue of trust though. How do you know Chrome is not going to install another of these in the future, without asking for consent? This should be opt-in or not at all, and the fact that it isn't tells every company how much they can trust Google.

I was interested in what you wrote but you lost me there. If someone writes a book about "rules for life", they have delusions of grandeur and place themselves into the "guru" category. Regardless of their politics too, we agree on that.

Well, no. There is such a thing as burden of proof. "There is a god" is an extraordinary claim that comes with a burden of proof. "There is no god" is as much an act of faith as "there is no santa", and does not come with a burden of proof, because it is not an extraordinary claim, rather a plausible one, since nothing observable in this world has "there is a god" as its most likely or simplest explanation.

I think we can be both atheist and agnostic: we'll never know if there is a god (while alive), I don't really care about the answer, but I also find it very unlikely and so I don't believe in it, while accepting that I might be wrong. In other words, atheism is not necessarily a gnosis, depending on how you define it.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. That being said, for perspective: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/...

That's also about the US, and there's some criticism of how poverty is traditionally measured. "Even though theyâ(TM)re earning more theyâ(TM)re not really getting ahead". Again, income is just one aspect of poverty.

Also check out the supplementary poverty measure, the US government gives measures and it has increased significantly between 2021 and 2023: https://www.census.gov/library...

Again, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. But don't be so sure that one statistic establishes a point. Poverty is a complex (and still evolving) topic.

You have not. The report you cite focuses on a comparison of the US middle class now Vs fifty years ago. If you don't understand why that doesn't constitute evidence against my claim, the discussion can't happen. I don't have the energy to produce more sources now and am happy to leave it at that, having provided no evidence for my claim and admitting that. But don't fool yourself about what you have provided and how it is limited in scope: single country, single point in time, subset of the population.

Income is a proxy for poverty, not a definition of poverty. And even if it is/were true that everyone is less poor now than 50 years ago, it doesn't mean that everyone is less poor now than 10 years ago. So you have not established that poor people aren't getting poorer. Arguably the burden of proof is on me, although I can't be arsed.

Isn't it quite uncommon that substances are forced into people? There's a whole debate about the vaccines but I am not aware of anyone being forced to be vaccinated. It's just that some doors close if you don't get vaccinated. This might change from one country/state to another. Is it common in psychotherapy that people are forced to take substances?