I think I heard that usage on desktop is something like 1 in 4, which is pretty good. Mobile is another world altogether, since it requires different browsers that support adblocking and then accessing websites through the browser instead of the app for the website, which many users would definitely prefer to use.
it’s scary for people who don’t understand it. i would never ask my parents to get it because i know that any errors or whatever their computer will get will get blamed on the extension and get blamed on me.
You wouldn’t ask your boomer parents to block ads that will likely get them to install viruses or get scammed? They are easily the demographic that would benefit the most from ublock.
You’ve clearly never had to deal with the “you touched my computer 3 years ago and now it won’t turn on. Why did you break my computer” family members. One of the number one pieces of advice for people just starting in IT is to never work on family members’ computers. Because as soon as you agree to fix something, you’re now the person to blame when something stops working. Because “it worked fine the last time you touched it, and now it’s broken. Clearly I didn’t do anything to break it, so it must have been you” is a scarily common train of thought.
This and don’t ever tell co-workers your into computers either. They will ask for say, laptop recommdations. So because you like them, you do a little research and send them some links. 6 months later they’ll come back asking for another recommendation because they didn’t buy anything when they last asked! This has happened to me more times than I care to think about. Totally annoys me.
I’ll wait until there’s greater consensus in the field. These papers reek of scientists who have strong political motivations to find the answers they seek, and I’m not expert enough to critique their work.
They aren’t the one making the claims though? Burden of proof doesn’t disappear because of the sensitivities of the subject matter, and biases do matter, especially where the claim is insufficiently evidenced.
I am fully open to the claims of this paper but fully unconvinced by the meagre evidence provided. I will read into it more over the coming weeks though to see if better literature exists.
No, I pointed out that they self-identify as feminists and are claiming to have found evidence of a finding feminists would salivate over. Investigator bias is a real problem in scientific research and I see some pretty obvious red flags for it here. You’re the one who seems butthurt at someone not immediately accepting a political point you favor.
I wouldn’t trust someone who doesn’t identify as a feminist, since feminism aims to minimize gender bias. Someone who’s not a feminist would be much more suspect.
Yes. Your entirely baseless claims, with literally no backing at all, without providing any substance or source for you claims, are very convincing here. You “see” and “smell” all sorts of “signs” but for some reason can’t name them.
You’d be literally laughed out of any reasonable credible discussion with this take. Hence why you’re also being downvoted to hell for it.
You’re just complaining because you don’t like it or something. If you had any reasonable evidence, you would have pointed to it. Instead you’re pointing to some boogeyman to try to defend your stance. You’re clearly the one who’s butthurt here.
I did point to it, named it. Investigator bias is not a “boogey man,” which you’d know if you had any understanding of the scientific method at all. You just don’t want to hear it, because you like the result being claimed in the article and don’t care much about the integrity of the evidence. I’m being downvoted, because this is Lemmy and I dared refuse to accept something a feminist claimed. Surprise, surprise.
I know very well what it is, but just screaming “investigator bias” doesn’t mean anything. By the “scientific method”, you must submit evidence and prove it.
But you don’t. Because you don’t have any. So there’s no reason to take your claims worth anything other than the ramblings of someone who’s just angry at the findings.
I really don’t care about the findings or whether they’re true. It has no bearing on me. But you’re acting like a buffoon.
Not the person you were responding to, but this article definitely has some big problems, the largest of which is they don’t cite any sources. None. That’s a significant problem for a ‘scientific’ article.
The first claim - Women hunted too - they present good evidence for, and a number of other studies have shown that many other societies had more integrated roles.
The second claim - Women are better at endurance than men - is shaky.
If you follow long-distance races, you might be thinking, wait—males are outperforming females in endurance events! But this is only sometimes the case. Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events such as the more than 260-mile Montane Spine foot race through England and Scotland, the 21-mile swim across the English Channel and the 4,300-mile Trans Am cycling race across the U.S.
Looking back at the placements, I agree women are definitely doing well, but they’re not what I’d call dominating. Women’s 1st place is placing ~5-10th overall. Impressive, for sure, but not dominating. They again, provide no sources, years of the race, or names of these women.
The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.
An enormous leap. This is a great theory to test and analyze, or link to others who have tested it, but not something to state as fact in a scientific article.
As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women’s events because of the belief that they will make the women “artificially faster,” as though women were not actually doing the running themselves.
Once again, I’m curious what races. I’m involved on the running scene, and have never heard of this rule before. Google results didn’t show anything either. Once again, a distinct lack of sources.
Women are definitely capable of doing super endurance events, but they are not the equivalent of men on setting records for any race I’ve found. See below for a few ultra endurance races I know of.
One called “backyard ultra”. Basically you do a lap of 6.7km each hour until everyone else drops out. World records are all men by a long shot - backyardultra.com/world-rankings/
Fastpacking, a slower event than the backyard ultras, involve hiking/jogging through hiking trails while carrying what you need. Definitely slower pace, and I’d argue closer to what I’d imagine with a long, days-long hunt would be like for ancient tribes. FKT, or fastest known times, are often found at this website. Looking at all the times, men carry a significant lead in both supported (ie someone else carries your food/water/sleeping gear), and unsupported. As an example, look at the Appalachian Trail – fastestknowntime.com/route/appalachian-trail
The thing the article failed to mention (and the thing I think is key) is that women excel at doing these things, typically, with less energy burnt both during and after the races. This is hinted at, implied, and signalled, but never outright stated.
Women on the whole are smaller, and tend to have better insulin responses (as mentioned in the article) which means their blood sugar stays consistent during exercise and after. Consistent blood sugar means less wasted energy. Larger heart and lungs, combined with higher type 2 muscle fibres compared to women’s type 1 (from the article) means, again, less wasted energy and more efficiencies. Less muscle damage, as mentioned in the article, means less to repair, which means more saved energy. In a hunter/gather society, this saved energy can be significant.
With modern access to food, that evolutionary advantage seems to vanish, and the article doesn’t even touch on it.
While I haven't checked their papers, I still do think this particular article is not convincing. They say the man-the-hunter theorists rejected data but don't cite articles that point at the flaw. It's business as usual to overlook data in real-world science. The question is, how significant the overlook was, but they don't cite anything scholarly, call it a day and move on.
Then they say traditional studies can have bias because they are done by men. This sounds shockingly unprofessional to me.
Except that the “existing consensus” as portrayed in the article is phony in the sense that no anthropologist has seriously believed or promulgated binary hunting and gathering roles for men and women since at least the 1960s. That may be a notion that exists in the popular imagination, but it doesn’t exist in contemporary anthropology and hasn’t for decades.
It’s been a long time since I’ve been in Anthropology class, but this isn’t something we were taught academically. Cultural Anthro is all theory-based, academics get paid to publish theory arguments. Imo, biologically, women carried babies, men didn’t, there would have been associated cultural roles to accomodate this as successfully as possible. The idea that it’s popular theory this meant men hunted and women gathered is just sensationalist. It’s niether competely wrong nor completely right. There are elements of both throughout many cultures. It’s the idea that it’s all or nothing is wrong.
And you're trusting everything an article says about a virus that says there's no solution?
What's to stop a black hat buying this to steal identities?
What's to stop one of the coders from leaking it? Or a black hat leaking it?
What about someone targeting an incorrect target and by doing so it ends up in the hands of someone more nefarious?
Hackers and black markets do what they want.
Can't afford it? Steal it.
Actually I hope it gets leaked because that would mean it will gets fixed.
Also im pretty against state Trojans and such, but as long as it makes money.
And what’s stopping someone from leaking it? It’s not particularly illegal to sell exploits and leaking exploits owned by someone is illegal. Also they won’t sell it for free and browser exploits are really expensive. I talking about at least half a million dollars.
There is no solution, because nobody except the ones who made it know how it works and its not public.
And we all know that democracies never do anything bad like buy trojans. That is impossible. Look at the great democracy that is America. America has never done a single bad thing since 1776.
I don’t like it and it definitely can be abused, but it’s not as bad as in Mexico
You replied to my wrong comment and basically said what I said in the comment you replied to.
I just don’t think it’s that huge of a deal since they had these exploits before. It’s just now that everyone knows about it. Pegasus and Preditor are their competitors and governments use them for years.
That’s not really a good thing, but it’s also not like everyone is going to be affected by it like it would be the case if this is public.
That's good to hear. I'm still suspicious of anything that sounds like room temperature superconductivity but it's nice to know the jury's still out and there's maybe hope.
Currently utilizing it in washington state. One of the first. Here's the biggest part: you need to spend one hour everyday doing this. It's basically meditation because you can't have anything interrupt you or do something else. You can split that into two thirty minutes sessions but fuck as a single father Its been impossible to find the time.
You can but you're told not to because you have to focus on the music and the sensation of the electric tingles on your tongue. So no I think it would be hard to read during it. It requires full mindfulness to get the best gain. Additionally, you cannot listen to it before bed, or in bed since it might put you to sleep. It's very soothing. But basically, it's an hour of meditation daily.
Cheap expansive flat land that it's easy to build massive factories in.
Also, people were claiming the arrid conditions were ideal for building clean rooms, but with the amount of dust and static electricity in Arizona, I call bullshit.
Almost always follow the money. Often the mayors offer insane tax breaks or land finances or something to attract the companies. Ostensibly to bring in more jobs and boost their own economy. Most do not consider the environmental portion, definitely companies don't.
Sadly the boats sunk by orcas probably aren’t owned by the elite we all hate. More likely everyday people with < 30’ boats shared by clubs or friends. Sailing can be a lot cheaper than you might think.
In “Climate Deniers Shift Tactics to ‘Inactivism’,” Michael Mann discusses the transition from climate change denial to a new strategy of hindering meaningful action on climate change, which he terms “inactivism.” Fossil fuel interests, previously focused on discrediting climate science, now deflect attention from systemic solutions and promote individual responsibility for climate change. Tactics include promoting the idea that lifestyle choices, not corporate policies, drive climate change, and sowing division within the environmental community. Mann argues for policy interventions and highlights the optimism inspired by young activists demanding action on climate change.
scientificamerican.com
Hot