sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago

some way to call a custom or 'third party' (not compiled into the program) extractor would probably be enough. then let other people work on ones for the, um, 'problem sites'.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

frequency (the time between them) of station id are mandated, i don't think the exact times of them are.

the real reason they all seem to go on 'break' at the same time is there's only a few companies that own most the radio stations. they aren't dummies. they know if they all go on breaks at about the same time, then people switching stations still land on ads.. and it might still be theirs.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

when it automatically enables on win11 home, it doesn't actually "enable" until you do sign-in to windows with a microsoft account so it has a place to stash the recovery key.

and, i have not had any difficulty turning the encryption off on win11 home systems.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

not yet, they haven't.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 month ago

without search and their abuse of that monopoly, google wouldn't have dominant positions or massive market shares that many of their other properties (products, services, software, etc) have.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

this WILL show up on russian tv where they claim americans are part of the 'invasion force'.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 month ago

probably not very many because it only took a single psychotic new owner to do that when he started pulling servers out of a sacramento data center a couple years back, with no engineering and no planning.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 month ago

and most every cpanel (and every other web host panel) box on the planet.

web, ftp, database, mail, dns, and more. all on one machine.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

if google cared, they'd vet ads and ad links, and guarantee their safety and security.

if google cared, they'd put a stop to seo 'optimizers' and scammers scoring top positions on serps.

but google doesn't care about anything other than their profits and share price.

adblockers can affect both of those. they're using the weak cover of 'security' enhancement to neuter them.

existing adblockers provide more safety and security than what can be realized by the shift to mv3.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

i mostly use a vivaldi or opera portable for those. unzip, run, use the temperamental site, close, delete directory. it's not very often that i have to do this.

but for a couple of pesky sites i do frequent a bit more often, i keep their portable browsers to reuse and have them configured (including addons) specifically for them.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

i did read somewhere that affected chrome users are being presented with alternatives from the chrome extension 'store' that are mv3-ready.

whether or not they're capable of clicking the right buttons on the right screens and windows to do it is another story.

ubo, abp and adguard all have mv3 variants. there are others, but i think those are the 'big three'. ublock origin lite is what i've been moving people to here, if not to firefox. so far, so good.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago

dns blocking methods do not, and literally cannot, block them all.

view more: next ›

adarza

joined 3 months ago