When Firefox started recording key strokes
Source? That’s news to me, and when I tried finding a source myself, all I found were extensions etc. to add that to the browser.
EDIT: Both the comment I replied to, and a comment replying to me by the same person, have been deleted…were they caught in a lie/mistake and not brave enough to admit it? lol
Years later, there is still politically-motivated misinformation people are trying to correct on the Wikipedia page about the Kenosha unrest shooting, as one example. To this day, it falsely describes Gaige Grosskreutz as a “paramedic” (beginning of second paragraph under the linked heading) when he is not, and was not, on that day (which was in 2020).
I glanced at the recent entries on that wiki’s Talk page, and in seconds found someone calling the same attacker, Grosskreutz, an “innocent victim”. It took an entire month for anyone to contradict that blatant (given the known facts of the case) lie.
Wikipedia is a great resource for ‘dry’ subjects, but to pretend there isn’t any bias or propagandizing going on, on pages about contentious concepts or events, is just naive.
Teachers’ classes are, sadly, full of such kids, there are many first-hand accounts out there over the past few years. It precedes COVID, but the pandemic definitely exacerbated it.
This is not nearly a MAGA-specific issue.
PBS: Be kind! Learn to read!
I literally once heard on NPR radio on the way to work that WoW players speaking out against gold farming was a racist act by white men (ironically a sexist/racist assumption about people who play that game, plenty of non-white/non-males who play), because the gold farmers are primarily foreigners (to the US). I’ll never forget that moment because I got honked at for taking too long to move after the red light I was stopped at turned green, because of my having turned down to the radio and saying “What?!” as I looked incredulously at it after hearing it, and the light happened to change right in that moment, lol.
Let’s not pretend PBS/NPR is immune to bias, lol.
Stopped tuning in to it on the way to work soon after that, haha.
I feel like I’m listening to Margaret Thatcher explain trickle down economics…
That’s because you’re deliberately misreading/twisting it, as exemplified immediately below.
More billionaires means better standard of living for everyone!
Straw man, I didn’t assert any causal relationship. I actually did the literal opposite; I refuted someone else’s assertion of a causal relationship by pointing out a lack of positive correlation between the incidence of billionaires per capita, and that of poverty in the populace.
If I pointed out that the rise of Internet porn does not correlate with a rise in committed rapes, that’s an effective counterargument to someone claiming that porn consumption increases the incidence of rape, but it’s not equivalent to me asserting that porn reduces rape.
But I have a feeling you’re intelligent enough to understand this; it’s just that your bias has clouded your judgment, and you’re willfully turning that part of your brain off, because you’ve decided I’m the Bad Guy, and being the Good Guy is more important to you than being accurate/honest.
Stop hating the rich!
You can hate them if you want, I just pointed out that it’s not useful to, and that doing so won’t do a thing to lift anyone out of poverty, which should be the actual goal. Loving the poor is a better use of your time than hating the rich.
Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off! [citation required]
Citation required for me having said that, you mean, since, you know, I didn’t. Liar.
the difference in monetary wealth is greater now, unless I have been mislead.
That is true, but in the end, it’s largely irrelevant. The incidence of poverty matters infinitely more than how large the gap is between the wealthiest and everyone else.
If hypothetically, not one person in the US was pulling down a penny less than $75k/year, that’d mean no one’s broke, right? And yet the size of the wealth gap would basically be identical, because the difference between $0 and $75,000 is nothing compared to the difference between $0 or $75,000, and hundreds of billions.
Over the past 100 years, the number of (inflation-adjusted, of course) billionaires per capita in the US increased by a whopping 7x. And yet, poverty was MUCH worse in 1925 than it is in 2025. Also, iirc, there is a positive correlation between average standard of living, and billionaires per capita, in a given country.
Eradicating poverty is the thing to aim for, but directly. And, despite the very common misconception, reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people (especially considering that the majority of that wealth is newly-created valuation, not actual money) will not move the needle toward that goal, at all. Too many people think wealth is a zero-sum thing, and assume the gap being wider than ever must mean that those not at the top have less than ever—that’s simply not true.
That would most likely be because you are ignorant of when it has already literally happened in the past, in other nations.
On multiple occasions in multiple countries, wealth taxes primarily aimed at the wealthiest demographic have been tried, and then repealed because overall tax revenue literally decreased as a result. There is a reason the vast majority of countries that have implemented such taxes have either since repealed them, or ‘loosened’ them such that they’re no longer primarily aimed at said demographic, and have become a much more ‘typical’ tax that the middle class pays.
no reason to discard the idea of putting a ceiling on the rich.
There is a very good reason to discard the idea of assigning an arbitrary ‘maximum wealth’, two actually:
It would be tremendously expensive resource-wise, logistically, to even reliably determine if one has reached that ceiling (net worth figures for individuals that you see in the media are guesses, not the result of actual auditing), much less calculate with any degree of certainty how far over the ceiling someone is, and that ‘research/enforcement cost’ is practically certain to completely cancel out (and then some) any potential added revenue, especially because it’s also trivially easy to circumvent by creating debt, etc.
After 10 million networth in wealth, all your income should go to taxes 100% until you’re below that limit…
This would be trivially easy to circumvent if it was put into place, just so you know.
I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.
You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.
The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.
So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.
I feel like people have completely forgotten that Kamala was at like 3% when she bowed out of the primaries.
That headline works whether or not that C is capitalized, heh…
There’s a large gap between disliking and wishing for death, lol
As someone who needs to actually feel peaceful while I have 45-60 minute threesomes in the shower during the week, I’m all set.
That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.
That is the point they’re making.
Is there another more ‘generic’ German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of ‘he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer’, and then no need to keep using “Fuhrer” anymore in the rest of the article.
You’re not exaggerating, you’re straight up fabricating. By equivocating “reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people …will not move the needle toward [eradicating poverty]” and “Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off!”, you’ve done the equivalent of taking me saying
“Eating oranges will not cure a cold”
and turning it into an accusation that I said
“Eating oranges while you have a cold will make it worse”
Absurd. Either your reading comprehension and/or understanding of fundamental logic are seriously lacking, or you’re just a disingenuous jerk. Which is it? There are no other possible explanations for an error this basic.