vaguerant

I think the part I’m unclear about is what definition of selling Mozilla was using before. Here’s the update they posted to clarify the changes: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. We changed our language because some jurisdictions define “sell” more broadly than most people would usually understand that word. […]

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. 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.”

I’m not trying to be a dick or anything–that comes naturally–but yeah, Mozilla. Exchanging a good or service for money is called selling it. Since this has already been Mozilla’s practice for a while and they’re only now removing the promise because the definition of “sell” has apparently become so muddied, I don’t follow how Mozilla was describing it before now.

In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. We set all of this out in our Privacy Notice. Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

I think this is really the important part and Mozilla is burying the lede by focussing on the word “sell”. I think there’s an argument to be made that “your data” is no longer “your data” once it has been de-identified. I don’t agree with that argument, but I find it more convincing than this Clinton-esque “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘sell’ is” stuff. Mozilla isn’t selling “your data” in the sense of your name and phone number, but they are selling “all data types”, de-identified, anonymized, pseudonymized and/or in aggregate, about you.

I would still argue that that is your data and that by selling it, Mozilla is and has been selling your data. It’s nice that Mozilla isn’t blasting anybody’s actual personal biographical details to all their advertising partners, but it’s misleading to say that’s the only way “selling data” is understood.

Source for the cavepalm: Newly Discovered Cave Paintings Suggest Early Man Was Battling A Lot Of Inner Demons - The Onion.

I got two early on, then no more. Is it still happening?

We’ve definitely gone too far in the opposite direction and everything looks super bland, but I feel like the only person who never liked the translucent plastic era. The insides are on the inside because they’re the part that’s not aesthetically pleasing. There was a period in the early 2000s or so where stuff just had cool case designs (GameCube, original Game Boy Advance; yes, I know there was the translucent Glacier model) and I find those to be the nicest to look at. Still, I’d take translucent colors over the “everything’s a black rectangle” look we have now.

And the remake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn_GKGN0Dh8

Spare a thought for the animatronic Yoshi who remained stone cold sober for the entire shoot.

It’s the name of one of the main characters in the Comedy Central sitcom Workaholics.

“Fry, remember when I told you about always ending your sentences a word earlier?”

Wasn’t sure if this was real or just for the memes, but it’s legit: Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum - Wikipedia

Return all the Alarmos to the sea from whence they came.

This makes me wonder if there are any exceptions, things that brains didn’t name. Onomatopoeia seem like a good starting place (and maybe ending place). Did we name cats’ meows meows or just hear them and go “OK, that’s what that is then”? Cat brains didn’t name them that either, they weren’t thinking what they should call the sound they make, they just made it.

As far as things which name themselves, I can’t think of anything else but sounds.