If you can’t look at it under any other light than the logical, maybe instead consider how interesting it is that humans can feel powerful sentimentality towards inanimate objects... to the extent that they feel compelled to act in irrational ways. You can find varying rituals like this across almost all cultures.
the universe is huge and time is long, there could be millions of civilizations and we could happen to exist at a time that doesn’t coincide with a single one
Are they? Are the terms "whitelist" and "blacklist" used only in the context of "allowing" and "blocking"? Who or what is the subject that is implied to be "allowing" and "blocking" the elements of each list? Is the process involved in "allowing" and/or "blocking" passive or active?
"Whitelist" and "blacklist" are abstract terms which are useful because they have general and non-specific meanings which can be adapted to many contexts. Artificially prescribed alternatives, introduced only to satisfy the current American cultural Zeitgeist, are not.
If only so much other "bad terminology" in IT that does not accurately reflect what it means, such as POST, PUT, cookie, bug, shell, etc. were also names of discriminated social groups in America... maybe then we could get people arguing loudly and stubbornly to replace them. One can only dream.
I think there’s some shame associated with gamification; like if it works for you, somehow it makes you unintelligent... but as long as you’re aware of it don’t lose sight of how you’re being manipulated then it can be a valuable tool just like anything else.
the option to be tracked by one untrustworthy company? oh and they’re also in charge of the “anonymization” algorithm, oh and they also decide who is exempt due to protected status (race, income, etc), did I also mention they make the browser most people use and are one of the world’s largest advertising providers?
where is the better part? is it the fact that this makes fingerprinting easier? or that floc makes more data available to advertisers than cookies?
tigers and pandas have such small natural habitats now that they’re effectively extinct in the wild; i’m not advocating for it, but it seems like nothing outside of large scale ecoterrorism can do anything fast enough to save our charismatic megafauna for anything other than morbid exhibition
This is one of those areas where percentage and actual count tell different stories. "doubled" vs "increased by about 1000" are very different stories when viewed in the context of "all the individuals of a species across the globe"
it’s easy to double when numbers are under 5,000. Many ecologists are not as rosy as the indian government about this... 95% of their range is gone at this point and there’s not a lot of genetic diversity; a single disease can wipe out of the population. We’d need nearly 100,000 tigers to have the diversity to avoid this, and we’re not on track for that by a long shot.
