Oh, I see you disabled JavaScript. Keep up the good work, my fellow cleanweb person!

Notice that there might be trace amounts of JS, used for e.g. runnable JS code blocks and interactive demos. JS is not required for use of the website though, it’s only enhancing the existing functionality.

I like to see people practicing what they preach!

Similar results with NoScript.

This volume requires JavaScript. That is part of the point — your browser is what is being read.

With JavaScript off, the page cannot tell you what your browser disclosed. The data is still there. The disclosure still happened. Only the telling of it stops.

The fact that they’re stopped from “the telling” says a lot about their abilities, but not much about “the disclosure”.

I imagine it was just stuff collected in most server logs: IP Address, user agent string… I’m not too concerned, really.

I’m sure it’s to give you a sense of “pride and accomplishment” when you give up and fix it yourself “adopt digital self‑solve”.

Under the law, developers of websites, apps, software, or other services designed to “nudify” images risk extensive damages[…]

I’m not going to take the time to read the language of the law, but I worry that “designed to” could give developers a lot of deniability.

“No, see… My app is designed to show you what you look like in user-created outfits. Like a virtual closet mirror! What do you mean users are trying on tiny bikinis and clear cellophane dresses? How could I ever have planned for that?”

Still, a good step in the right direction, I suppose.

Sooo, süsskraut?

Def süs, ngl.

Yeah, I think/hope this is their “Find Out” era.

I don’t think they’re arguing that Firefox is more susceptible to bit flips. They’re trying to say that their software is “solid” enough that a significant number of the reported crashes are due to faulty hardware, which is essentially out of their control.

If other software used the same methodology, you could probably use the numbers to statistically compare how “solid” the code base is between the two programs. For example, if the other software found that 20% of their crashes were caused by bit flips, you could reasonably assume that the other software is built better because a smaller portion of their crashes is within their control.

It seems that the system is not RFID or passive, but an active system that requires a battery to transmit data. It’s far more likely that the batteries, which typically lasts about the length of time I’ve owned my car, are just drained.

Jokes on them. My TPMS sensors died a while ago, and I haven’t felt the need to fix it.

Now I’m a ghost! /s

My German is getting quite rusty, but I think I remember enough of the grammar…

The noun “Kaffee” is masculine, so normally, the nominative form would be “der Kaffee” or “ein Kaffee”. However, in OP’s sentence, it would be a direct object, making it use the accusative form of “den/einen Kaffee”. Then, the adjective will take the same ending as the article here (though the rules are weird and complex, so that’s not always the case).

Thus, “Einen grossen, schwarzen Kaffee” should be correct.

Floating, fixed water accommodation with hot water from steam which is exclusively for relaxation and absolutely safe.

I feel nerd sniped.

get your 7 a day.

Growing up, I learned that five a day was the magic rule (more is ok, less is uncool).

Have the guidelines changed? Damned inflation…

Tangentially related, you might find this “What if?” video from XKCD creator Randal Monroe interesting.

Can you drive West to lengthen the sunset?

ETA? Estimated Time of Arrival?

In this context, it means “Edited To Add”. I do wish they abbreviated it some other way, since “Estimated Time of Arrival” is a much more common meaning. I would accept “E2A” or something stupid, as long as it was more unique. Alternatively, they could just use “Edit:”.

Edit: added link.