A specific subset of crimes reduced, i wonder what the demographic of those criminals is.

Not to say you shouldn't be arresting criminals, but they should be arresting all criminals, they don't need a 1984 style facial rec system for a 10.5% drop in crime.

Well, i say that , but equal opportunity crime prosecution isn't really what the police are for, so...

Actually arrest and prosecute the many many known criminals in the government and corporate world, no capital outlay in camera networks required.

Pretty sure that would give you a solid reduction in crime numbers as well.

If you don't know any examples, how will specificity help ?

from which dialect is "did you born" ?

There can be vast differences in reading comprehension and contextual tone recognition.

As an easy example think of the many degrees of neurodivergency.

Secondly, British sarcasm and indeed a lot of British communication in general comes from the intention to be deliberately vague, so as to bake plausible deniability in to the responses given.

It can be inferred, but it's not a guarantee.

That being said this guy seems to just be a prick trying to walk back something that blew up in his face.

You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?

Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.

Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.

Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints

Politicians are people too, sure.

Doing a bad job of implementing a self serving plan doesn't excuse the self serving plan.

That's some 'boys will be boys' nonsense.

Take brexit and Alexander as example, his intent was to do something shitty for self gain, he's not an idiot no matter how it seems.

There's no chance he believed that ridiculous tagline about the NHS funding and Europe, even if he did, someone at some point would have pointed it out to him.

He did it anyway, that's intent.

Regardless of the outcome, he did something he knew was shitty, for whatever reason he had.

These people might be idiots, but their intent is usually to do something shady, that they are incompetent and do a shitty job of it isn't the point.

Wrt to the America thing, I agree, I'm not saying the government is working with tech companies, im saying their intent usually isn't 'save the children', at that point we absolutely should be hunting for the reasons, because if it isn't the reason they have stated, what are they hiding?

To be clear, i'm asking a very specific question about a very specific statement.

when you say :

So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

Are you claiming that basic CICO, which is peer reviewed science has "nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism."

or was that just poor phrasing ?

That sounds exhausting, but potentially hilarious.

Still shows up for me, though i'm almost certainly blocked by them.

On the plus side that allows me to provide solid reviews for the folks at home without having to dive in to meta-reviews of responses to me.

Based on what you've written it seems you're assuming:

• Users will get any protections from this.
• That giving advertisers what they need is considered a win by everyone.
• Advertisers aren't just going to do exactly what they did with the "Do not track" option.
• Attribution is the only thing they are using the collected data for.
• This will somehow disable their ability to collect fingerprinting data.

I'm not generally one for absolutes but i would put a significant portion of my current and future earnings on the fact that even if there was 100% adoption of this new privacy preserving by everyone in the world, advertisers would still be pulling some shit.

They would be performing elaborate privacy ignoring shenanigans because privacy gets them nothing and data is potential profit.

AdTech companies have a rich history of doing absolutely everything they can to profit from anything they can, it is naive to think they will so anything different in the future.

Github is going in a a different, subjectively more harmful, way.

But it'll probably be a round for a long while yet.

I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be "argue and make things worse" or "don't do that", a negative and a neutral respectively.

I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.

In case we are not :

Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.

In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.