Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
I feel like for straw poll it's more valid, they probably do it to try and avoid people voting more than once.
Cookies are not evil per se... but data mining companies made them like that.
I'm administrating an online store and cookies are responsible for the customer's cart, plus their user session / logged in state.
As an admin I adhere to the "golden rule", thus there are no creepy trackers on store. I don't like them and I don't want customers to face the same thing on websites that I manage.
That said, cookies are needed for user session & fraud protection. Instead of nuking cookies we shall kick the trackers out.
Yea but all that kind of functionality can work with (permanent) private mode as well. I don't use a lot of web services so I can log in when I need or make a pwa like with Lemmy here.
"One vote per IP-address" - So they already tackled the problem that people can vote more then once.
Straight-up asshole design.
That's also asshole design. Most people are behind some form of nat. It's especially egregious for customers of ISPs who use CGNAT.
Exactly what I think. They also block VPNs and such.
Let Mozilla know by filing a report on Webcompat.
I'll look into that. I believe web sites shouldn't have any way to detect private mode, right?
I wonder if it tries to save a cookie then read it back? I don't really know how any of this works but that sounds like a way to detect it that's fairly infallible.
Writing a cookie and reading it back should work just fine even in incognito mode. It just gets deleted once incognito is closed.
I mean, of all sites, polls make the most sense to require cookies to avoid duplicate votes.
Wouldn't the better solution be to keep a log of previous client IPs, on the server side? Sure, VPN will circumvent it, but it's much easier for me to clear a cookie 100 times then to connect to 100 different VPNs.
The EU has made logging IP addresses generally illegal.
That's when I stop giving them traffic. There's far too many alternatives to do otherwise.
Enter.
"NOPE"
clicks back
And proceed to chose next search result.
There's an extension that allows you to hide incognito mode from websites called Hide Private Mode I'm not sure why browsers don't do this by default (maybe it's some funny compliance thing) it would greatly improve privacy.
Thx. It's weird, but I guess that's now part of Firefox now, to be hypocrites.
Also why the heck does the browser need to ping Google every time I launch a private session? I can't even fathom a reasonable answer.
It's not pointless, it's so they can track you.
what a misnomer too
It's crazy how many people think "incognito mode" prevents people from seeing what websites they are visiting.
Any websites that doesn't just work with a simple ad blocker or still has ads I just close and never return.
"Oops! Looks like you're using an adblocker! Please pay a subscription!"
Oops looks like I'm gonna check the comments for someone who pasted your article for free!
It kind of makes sense for strawpoll, because without some sort of cookies, they wouldn't know if the same person is voting multiple times. But they should say something like 'incognito mode makes the votes inaccurate, please visit on normal mode'
One vote per IP-Address allowed.
They already have your IP. "Incognito" mode doesn't change that.
That does have the consequence of allowing only one person to vote per public IP, which on large networks may correspond to quite a lot of users.
That probably doesn't matter much for a simple internet straw poll, but I can imagine situations where IP-based uniqueness isn't reliable enough.
I kind of understand this one though, 99% of the time stuff like this is just bullshit. But this is an effort to stop users from voting multiple times.
When I go to a site, and they do it, I avoid it at all the costs or never come back!
Is that Firefox Focus? Because if yes, them that counts as "incognito mode" too.
It's IceRaven, but I have it set to permanent private mode. I dont need to deal with cookies of every shitty site.
Sites like this I just close the tab and use uBlacklist to hide them from any search results.
Honestly people should just set there browser to clear cookies on close
Can't say I like logging into all of my accounts (most of which gave 2FA as well) 3 times a day
I see that i directly close the thing
For such things, I have a script that creates a brand new temporary Firefox profile and deletes it immediately after closing the browser.
When is the world going to admit that by and large, internet advertising is garbage and doesn't work? People are far more likely to buy whatever random crap sponsor is on their fav youtuber's videos than anything from "targeted advertising".
Companies have the data for how much Internet advertising works.
That's why they keep buying ads.
Does it not work though?
It's hard to imagine that companies are just happily pissing away money on advertising for absolutely no reason. I agree that standard banner ads you see in articles seems pretty useless, but I can imagine other formats being more effective. Youtube ads, either as part of the content or interrupting it, seem decently effective, given that they're essentially the equivalent of TV ads. Speaking personally, I actually went to a cabaret-style show recently that I learned about through an Instagram ad, and had a really great time there. The performer asked how people had heard about it, and quite a lot were through Instagram.
And suffice it to say that, given that the title of this show is "Spooky and Gay", that ad was very much targeted lol, and effectively. I honestly can't say I'm that upset about it. I don't think it's so much the very concept of targeted advertising that I dislike so much as just the fact that it's so often done very poorly.
If it didn't work, do you really think "profit at all costs" businesses would be spending millions of dollars to do it?
It works often enough, and that amount is enough for Google and Facebook to become two of the largest companies in the world. If it didn't, people probably wouldn't have kept doing it this long. It may not work on you, but in that case you probably aren't representative of the general population.