elbucho

I have no idea why this admiral would be willing to fall on the stupidest sword imaginable for pete god damned hegseth. Like... are they offering him a lot of money or something? How flimsy is his sense of honor that he'd be willing to sell out his entire reputation for that?

God, what a piece of shit.

"Why would we ever attempt to hold administration officials accountable? So he did some war crimes. Big deal! Doing something about it would tank our popularity among people who would never in a million years vote for us anyway! Besides, we might scare off billionaire donors!"

Man, fuck the NYPD. Protectors of traitorous Nazi scum.

Daylight Saving time, Donald Trump & his supporters, the US healthcare "system", mosquitos, Christmas music, babies on airplanes, hangnails, bigotry and intolerance of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.

I used to hope that, but these last couple of decades have brutally beten such optimism out of me.

The 37th president was Richard Nixon, or "Tricky Dick", as quite a few people called him. Something to think about.

Klingon. I would love to hear my cat yell about glory while attacking a random bit of lint he found on the ground.

Edit: I realize you said "human" language, but a human invented klingons and their language, so I'm saying it counts.

Ok, but it's providing information to advertisers about your activity, right? When I click on something, Firefox sells that information. Whether you consider it "personal data" is irrelevant; it is data about me: my actions.

You seem to be pretty hell-bent on defending Mozilla here. You work for them or something? It really is very simple. They started out more idealistic, but then they realized that things are expensive and there's money to be made, so they sold out a little. It happens.

This counts as a “sale” even though no actual identifying information about you was exchanged. They mention this in the paragraphs I attached, when they talk about data sent via OHTTP.

I mean... it should count as a sale, because it's a sale. They are selling information about browsing habits for money. Regardless of whether they include identifying information, it is still personal data that they are selling. They removed that line from their FAQs because they changed their minds about selling personal data. It has fuck all to do with weird legal definitions. They promised they wouldn't ever sell personal data, and then they were like "wellll......"

As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

Yes. That is selling. If you exchange customer data for money or other valuables, that is the definition of "selling".