Google or most search engines work fine with screen readers with javascript enabled. I think your understanding of how web accessibility works is likely severely outdated. There's just too many websites that use JavaScript that it would be a disservice if web didn't support accessible interface for pages with javascript.
That said, as ARIA rule #1 says, it's better to not use javascript, as it's always less error prone. That doesn't mean websites shouldn't use javascript when they have reasons to do so, as long as they correctly follow ARIA.
> Which is why I defer to my anac-data, which admittedly biased illustrates that its just not effective but is entirely moot without addressing the core of the issue and principal of the matter as a whole: body autonomy.
Can you explain how sugar tax is an issue about body autonomy ? As far as I can see, you are free to continue putting sugary water into your body. Is the argument that even a small increase in tax is an encroach upon bodily autonomy ? Do you consider farm subsidies (e.g. maintaining US corn production) as a bodily autonomy issue then, since it lowers the cost of corn / fructose and making them available in more food ?
> Can you explain how sugar tax is an issue about body autonomy?
Simply put, you are arbitrarily punishing those who consume these products (which I will repeat I do not purchase myself) in often high cost areas (eg Seattle, San Francisco, Boulder) to align with a specific ideology that these areas ascribe to, at least on the surface.
I feel like a boomer saying this and it seems like I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, because it's something that on the surface makes sense to a degree--relying on the old adage of tax it and you get less of it--and even appears to be well intentioned way to make people make 'healthier' choices, but from what I've seen in practice is a bureaucratic way to modify behaviour in people's everyday lives that ultimately only causes a minor inconvenience/friction for those resolved to circumvent and the initiative's results seem dubious at best and over-reaching at worst.
I genuinely don't think in practice it's about health either as you can easily go around the other aisle and buy all the high sodium, poly-saturated chips with as much or more HFCS and MSG and countless amounts of dyes and food preservatives to your hearts content with no tax implication and are often encouraged to be purchased in bulk, so it seems perplexing that this is really the success they make it out to be.
It seems to me like a bike-shedding initiative if I have ever seen one as it avoids the much bigger issue of how un-healthy the American diet really is.
> Do you consider farm subsidies (e.g. maintaining US corn production)...
Because as you have mentioned, the obscenely lucrative farm subsides of corn for mega farms is the crux of the issue here and by extension all of the lobbying by big business that takes place for these chemicals that are actually shaping what the American diet itself is; I believe we would be better served addressing that obvious and glaring problem, and forcing producers of these products to have to do without these highly subsidized and addictive chemicals in their products and letting consumers decide whether to consume them of their own volition at actual market rates rather than this window dressing approach.
Quantum computer becoming available / powerful does not mean all cryptography will get broken. People who have actual knowledge and expertise are already busy working on various aspects of PQC.
Recovery email is good but still not the most reliable way.
My #1 recommendation is to setup a passkey, and also set multiple security keys as the 2nd factor. All other authentication factors are subject to some form of heuristic defense.
Beyond that, a few optional things you can do in addition:
- Use Advanced Protection.
- Use a platform that's more secure , which are iOS, ChromeOS and some android (e.g. Pixel), in general and especially during recovery attempt.
> This seems like a huge failure on the part of the NTSB.
This is a deep misunderstanding. NTSB is not an organization with a regulatory power - it is an "investigative" agency. It does not have any mandate or power to stop anyone from doing anything. It can investigate and issue recommendations and reports to other agencies that have the actual power - FAA, FHA, NHTSA, etc, etc.
Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago, finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard. The reduction in adblocking is so miniscule in aggregate - since declarative approach will always cover all the major advertisers - that it's not even a meaningful "trade-off".
> Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago,
iOS I'll give you, but macOS can in fact run ex. Firefox.
> finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard.
"Matching" inferior security+privacy is not a good thing. The only way this is an improvement if you think the blockers are malicious; otherwise a useful tool in the users interest has been made less powerful.
> Look at how many in Kaspersky’s list are advertised as ad blockers
By my count 5, 6 if we include "Autoskip for Youtube", out of 34. That might be an argument for dropping extensions, but I don't think it's an argument for breaking ad blockers.
> Those extensions used the same API that ad blockers used, but for malicious purposes.
Sounds like an obvious chance to flag the extension for further review, and probably a warning on the user side.
> So, you would support removing that API?
Of course not; that's throwing out the baby with the bath water. This brings us back to the "further review" thing; there's plenty of precedent for a platform having API surface that only a smaller subset of apps/extensions are allowed to use, because the features it exposes are legitimately needed for some things but it could be abused so it gets flagged and you have to write a detailed explanation for why your thing really needs this permission and then the reviewers can look at it particularly closely.
> Well, that’s what they did for MV3 and implemented an API just for ad blocking.
And then for bonus points they hobbled it so that it couldn't be used to make as good of ad blockers, which is why the whole thing is not okay.
Okay, if you absolutely must then make that specific API require extra audit approval from the extension store, but breaking it outright is throwing out the baby with the bathwater; in a world where the FBI outright recommends an adblocker because ads are such a strong malware vector ( https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/22/fbi-ad-blocker/ ), it's irresponsible to undermine uBo.
It’s similar, but not the same. Safari lets you dynamically generate rules that are then compiled for privacy and efficiency. The limits were increased to 150000 rules per content blocker due to user demands [1]. And each extension can have multiple content blockers.
MV3 has a measly 30000 static rule limit. These rules are included with the extension and cannot be updated dynamically. And a 5000 dynamic rules limit. [2]
EDIT: Chrome now has a 300000 shared pool for static rules for extensions that go over their 30000 limit. And a 30000 dynamic rule limit [3].
"Based on input from the extension community, we also increased the number of rulesets for declarativeNetRequest, allowing extensions to bundle up to 330,000 static rules and dynamically add a further 30,000."
https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begi....
It looks like it’s a shared quota now with a minimum per extension [1].
Still sucks that the rules are static though. AdGuard devised a method to diff ruleset changes with the built in rules to generate dynamic rules between extension updates. So, I guess it works.
Which adblocker are you using? I have adguard and dont get ads on most safari sites but its just static DNS blocking so first party ad servers like youtube dont get blocked.
Why should I need an adblocker app from some third party to which I have to grant full control over my browser? Apple would be enormously popular if they included one by default. Perhaps as an option you could disable. I don't know why all browsers don't do this (well, I know why Chrome doesn't).
Browsers are selected by users, they should have no obligation to show ads.
Brave is the only one doing this right AFAIK.
Almost all the problems with tracking and buying and selling user profiles would end if browsers just didn't show ads.
I mostly stopped reading paper books, as I do almost all book reading through Libby app on my tablet that has a high resolution display like most tablets produced in the past few years. It's a superior experience than a paper book in almost every way.
At work and home, with 4k monitor, it's so much easier to put multiple reading materials side by side and read / research across.
In 2012, even on the state of the art computer systems, the reading experience wasn't as good as it is now.
> Because the woman was already receiving immunosuppressants for a previous liver transplant,
This makes sense - this was the first trial, so doing this on a person already on immunosuppressants minimizes risk while still validating the basics of if it works at all in the first place.
Very bold claim, and as such, it needs substantial evidence, as there is practically no meaningful evidence to support this. There are some real world non-trivial c++ code that are known to have very few defects, but almost all of them required extremely significant effort to get there.
You don't need permit, and you don't even need new wiring.