Well, the thing is, you just admitted that your initial comment about Firefox being more vulnerable was based on nothing, since you did your research only after. Then you so quickly went over the data you looked for that you only saw that total that seemed to confirm your unfounded bias, where the tables have that very readable color code to them, making 2015 and 2016 really jump to the eye.

Of course, now that the data you found goes against your bias, you just look to discredit it, instead of thinking “you know, maybe this isn’t as clear-cut as I thought it was”.

So no, no charity there. I’ll keel it for those who act in good faith, thank you.

For starters, if I had not called you out, you wouldn’t have provided sources. So my point still stands, your previous message, unsourced, was fear mongering.

Onto your data. Funny that you wrote the total from 2015, not mentioning that 127 of those code execution vulns are from 2015 and 2016… So 8 code exec since 2017, versus 85 for Chrome. I don’t think we can attribute that only to market share.

Either you don’t know how to read a table, or you purposefully ignored that part, perhaps hoping no-one would click on your links?

almost certainly has more vulnerabilities than Chromium browsers

Unless you have real world data that confirms it, this is just fear mongering.

I haven’t seen anyone, even the worst of them, pretend we’re already at AGIs. Granted some of them pretend we’re getting close to AGIs, which is an outrageous lie, but a different one.

I’m not white and from now on I’m even more likely to get shot than before.

I’d argue that with him alive and continuing to spew his hate and calls for violence, that probability would have unfortunately continued to go up. It went up by a bigger margin with his death sure, but it wouldn’t have stopped with him not being shot.

That being said, I do feel very bad for you and all those affected.

The department began to use a computer model in 2018 called “advanced data analytics” to sort cases and help officers make eligibility decisions. It claims the system can speed processing by up to 87 per cent.

87%… Well this is not worrying at all!

A 2018 Chinook user manual released under access to information suggests an officer can use the system to examine up to 1,000 cases at the same time.

Yep, nothing to worry about, definitely.

It always warms my heart to see older memes still being relevant and shared.

I see it more as a step towards banning a ton of content they don’t like by claiming they are porn, or porn-adjacent (for example any LGBTQ+ content)

I just want to add that “Look into it” is never a good argument; either you know of a study that shows this, in which case just link it (you’re the one with the burden of proof here), or don’t comment about imaginary data.

If you’re behind CGNAT I don’t see how Plex will do any better. Same with no router access.

A domain is 1$ per month, which in most countries will be cheaper than any streaming service, or even a Plex subscription for that matter.

Finally, as I said, for Caddy it’s 3 lines, that you can get with 1 word search, and will have 2 substitutions for you to make, one being the previously mentioned domain, the other being Jellyfin’s IP and port. If you’re going the route of self hosting I sure hope a word search is not beyond your abilities.

A reverse proxy is like 3 lines in Caddy, it’s really not hard to set up

Isn’t being a fascist also a requirement?

And for Québec it’s https://reglementpainquebec.ca/

Your answer does reveal that I may not have understood your previous message, but it only confuses me more…

What are the 2 sides we are talking about here?

I’ll bite: what’s wrong with the other side?

In my city there was a photo radar set up at a construction site that issued 10 tickets to the same vehicle over a period of 2 weeks all before the driver recieved the first ticket in the mail. How does that improve road safety (assuming that actually the intent of photo radar)?

So, one unique example where it took 2 weeks to have an effect is enough to say that they don’t work? While there are studies available through a simple word search that show the opposite? I’m confused here, but perhaps I misunderstood that 2nd paragraph.

Is it truly a bad strategy? Or is there much less direct action than what’s needed?

Cat nail caps are not a perfect answer to this problem, but still an infinitely better one than amputation (please don’t use the term declawing as it’s extremely misleading).

There’s also ways to encourage your cat to use scratch pads and the like instead of your furniture (cats hate citrus for example, so a bit of that where they want to scratch and they’ll find a new spot immediately).

The simple fact that we still call it “declawing” is so infuriating… I’ve had to tell a lot of people around me that it actually is an amputation.

Way I see it is it just stops being a live service game, and stays at the latest version, which is the one you can then host.