« first day (3124 days earlier)      last day (1783 days later) » 

12:03 AM
@skillpatrol I did indeed!
@Robusto Hmm. I've heard some good things about it.
But it is still Chromium, so will they be able to keep the necessary API functions working that Google is going to block, no doubt from Chromium itself? They'd have to form Chromium?
Question: why not just use Firefox?
It's fast, it guards your privacy, and it has the best and most capable add-ons, so far as I know.
@Mitch I think probably not—not only because the -e- in iter cannot easily disappear like that, but also because I don't think they would combine a noun with a verb "to go" in that manner.
It makes me think of the supine suffix -(i)t- and a suffix -er of sorts, then turned into a verb?
@Færd That would make a great question on Latin.SE!
 
12:25 AM
@Cerberus I think the ad blocker stuff is built into the browser.
Check it out from the link.
It also has private browsing with Tor, if that appeals to you.
I like it so far because I use Chromium and the dev tools in it. Firefox dev tools are just a little ... not like what I'm used to. It's some fairly small stuff, but you know how you get used to doing things a certain way ...
 
@Robusto From hat I hear, what it uses is Adblock? To which Ublock Origin is superior.
@Robusto Absolutely.
 
Dunno. But it seems pretty good so far.
 
I remember occasionally using the dev tools in Chrome.
But that never stopped me from using Firefox as my main.
 
Yeah, I guess.
 
@Robusto Does it block all Youtube and other video ads reliably?
 
12:30 AM
So far so good.
 
I seem to remember that didn't work well in Chrome, not even with Ublock.
Oh, good.
 
I used Ublock in Chrome and that worked fine. My concern is if it goes away ...
I remember when Firefox was the best browser ever. Using Venkman for JavaScript debugging ... ^_^
The very idea of JS debugging was new, like around 12, 13 years ago.
Now excellent debuggers are built right into everything. Even my watch, probably.
 
Yay!
My microwave does the hippest Javascript debugging.
@Robusto Hmm, strange that it should have worked fine for you.
For me, it was always off and on.
 
I had Adblock and Ublock working.
 
But I was probably already years behind on Chrome releases by the time I went off XP and to 10.
Both together!
Hmm from what I hear, they might or might not interfere with each other?
 
12:37 AM
I had no trouble with ads, though.
I love a pristine ad-free environment.
Here's the userAgent string from Brave: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36")
 
But there could be some impact on performance.
Oh, well. If it worked.
@Robusto So do I.
@Robusto Hmm that look highly specific. Easy to fingerprint?
 
Brave claims it actually is faster.
 
To use two adblockers?
 
No. To use Brave w/o addons.
@Cerberus Fingerprint you to a browser? Big deal.
 
What browser you use is just part of your fingerprint.
So a more common browser may dilute your fingerprint more.
 
12:42 AM
It actually blocks trackers too.
I figure it can't hurt to try it. Especially since it imports all my Chrome bookmarks and authorizations.
 
Sure, do it!
I don't remember who are behind Brave.
But I think they're OK.
I wonder what "used" means.
 
Dunno.
 
You keep using Brave.
 
I don't really need any of those extra filters.
 
Neither do I.
But I may 'need' many of the ones Ublock offers.
 
12:56 AM
I don't really need Tor, either, but I guess the potential is there.
 
Yay.
 
haha, SE doesn't recognize me with a Tor connection. ^_^
 
I remember using a ToR extension in Firefox.
Congrats.
 
 
9 hours later…
9:56 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in answer, email in answer (161): A word for price after tax and service charge but before discount by David Robert on english.SE
 
 
2 hours later…
11:49 AM
@Cowp you might be interested in answering this
7
Q: In the USSR's legal system, was everything illegal unless specifically allowed?

einpoklumAlan Dershowitz was recently interviewed by Michael Tracey on the latter's podcast. At 09:20 into the interview, Dershowitz makes the following claim regarding the USSR legal system: ... unlike in the Soviet Union, where everything you did was [a] crime unless there's a specific statute that ...

 
 
3 hours later…
2:55 PM
@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ I know nothing about the legal system of the USSR
There were different times in the soviet history - during some periods, you could walk naked in the streets. During other periods, you could be taken to a prison camp for showing up for work 15 minutes late.
But the questioner is clearly prejudiced, judging from his "merely anti-USSR cold-war-style propaganda" remark
In general, yes, everything now specifically allowed could get you into trouble.
My uncle created a kind of unofficial do-good club in his youth, and the matter was taken up to the local party officials when someone squeaked on them.
Because you could not create any kind of organization in the USSR without authorization from above.
Any kind of organization, starting from a postage stamp collection club, if created without authorization, was viewed as subversive.
On account of his stellar track reckord, my uncle was let go.
The local Party official told him that if this "letting go" becomes known in the higher ranks of the Party, this official might get punished heavily, but basically the official was willing to risk his career because my uncle seemed not "anti-soviet".
After the demise of the USSR, my mother told me that my grandfather had been taken prisoner during WWII, and escaped the day after or several days after.
This piece of information was only disclosed in our family to children once they reached about 16 years old, lest they spill this information to anyone outside the famly.
That's Soviet Union for you.
It was subversive even to be captured by enemy for 2 days, because - what if the enemy had converted you?
So when Putin said in the early 2000s that "the fall of the USSR was a catastrophe", I knew right away he was a sick fuck.
Like saying that the fall of the Third Reich was a catastrophe.
 
3:55 PM
1st of June - Children Protection Day
(In Russia)
 
4:32 PM
 
 
2 hours later…
6:44 PM
@CowperKettle I think they're more anti-BS than pro-USSR, if there is any prejudice.
@CowperKettle I understand. Lots of regimes did things to people but the Third Reich gets all the infamy.
Well, most.
 
7:35 PM
@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ For some reason, the Third Reich outstripped them all. I still cannot understand this.
The Soviet system did not intend to kill nations.
And it was very flexible, because Carl Marx, I guess, never intended to create a system with labor camps, tortures and mass murder.
 
@CowperKettle Understand what? Why nazis are so infamous but regimes/armies with bigger kill counts aren't mentioned as much?
That'd be because the defeated leaders are NOT alive, representing a country, and the winners are still in power
 
@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ I cannot understand how exactly the Nazi regime arose, because the premise of destroying a whole nationality is outrageous.
I know that there was the Tutsi genocide. But it was kind of "sudden", not based on well-polished machinery like in Germany.
So it's very odd and interesting.
And Germany had centuries of philosophy and culture behind its back. Very interesting.
 
@CowperKettle I think you can push people to believe and act upon basically anything with enough muddying of the waters
AFAIK they employed most of the techniques fascists employ. All at the same time. At a time when the whole world was kinda depressed and erratic.
 
nods
 
And remember that societies were pretty close-knit then, but effective means of cross-border communication wasn't possible for laymen
So you tell a group of people that they are all righteous martyrs of this very dangerous thing that's developing in the world, act like it definitely exists and the people then wouldn't have questioned it.
 
7:43 PM
It's almost 1 am here, I'm drowsy. I concur drowsily.
William Shirer's book is very interesting in this regard.
 
It's 00:15 here, I'm making things up
But let's pretend I know what I'm talking about
 
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany is a book by William L. Shirer chronicling the rise and fall of Nazi Germany from the birth of Adolf Hitler in 1889 to the end of World War II in 1945. It was first published in 1960, by Simon & Schuster in the United States. It was a bestseller in both the United States and Europe, and a critical success outside Germany; in Germany, criticism of the book stimulated sales. The book was feted by journalists, as reflected by its receipt of the National Book Award for non-fiction, but the reception from academic historians was mixed....
I wonder if there are similar great books in this vein.
 
Shirer. Is he a hobbit?
 
No, a journalist.
 
8:32 PM
oops
0
Q: Etymology of 'calcitare'?

MitchWhile interested in the etymology of 'recalcitrant', most sources (OED, M-W, etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/recalcitrant) ) give something like the following: 1823, from French récalcitrant, literally "kicking back" (17c.-18c.), past participle of recalcitrare "to kick back; be i...

 
 
1 hour later…
9:58 PM
@RegDwigнt: I just discovered Germans can clap on the back beats:
Well, sort of.
Now it remains for the French to follow suit.
 

« first day (3124 days earlier)      last day (1783 days later) »