can someone explain to me why you would use RH over something like Fidelity who has 24/7/365 support and no commission trades? honestly the first thing i do when it comes to a service (especially financial) is see if they have a way in getting in touch with someone 24/7/365. i would rather pay to know i can call and talk to a human then save money. seems like these people lost dollars tripping over pennies. even if a trade cost $5 a trade, i would still pay it just to know i can reach someone.
RH has the best user interface experience on mobile. Charges no commissions on options and you get automatic deposits. So it has the smallest barrier to entry. Very straightforward to use, it's very simple and clean. Buy and trade stocks and puts and calls, no problem. Yes if you try more complex option strategies then RH starts to fall apart. But for the majority of people that are just tagging along from wallstreetbets or something like that, RH is the simplest way to get you in the stock market.
They might mean that they approve users for it more easily and quickly than other brokerages. Logs are definitely kept (and in more locations than just RH).
Warning to not install this extension if you use google ads in any capacity (work/blog/other), it will get your account banned from google very quick for clickfraud.
Similarly, if you work in a bank, I recommend not spontaneously shouting about the evils of capital while lighting the til on fire.
The entire point of the extension is to attack the incentive mechanism that makes ad networks work. This tends to mix poorly with trying to turn a profit from those same networks.
It's where you're effectively banned without being told about it. You can still use the service, but any action you take is isolated from the rest of the site. The term I think comes from reddit but the concept is by no means unique to them: your upvotes or downvotes wouldn't affect rankings and nobody would ever see your submissions or comments other than you. The idea is to let spammers or fraudsters waste their energies on accounts that have already been flagged, instead of notifying them that they've been banned so they switch to a clean account.
That is a stupid idea and will get your accounts and IP banned from Google and Cloudflare. Use it yourself if you want, do not encourage others to use it.
It is based off uBlock Origin. Just use uBlock Origin.
Because Google calculates clicks as results, people are encouraged to click the ads, meaning news sites earn more money if clicks increase, and the advertiser has to pay more money to Google if clicks increase.
Ad fraud is when you scheme to get clicks on your own site to defraud the ad network that would pay you for the space you sold them. It is not relevant here unless you're using the extension on your own site.
I'll challenge your claim that it's a stupid idea, if you really want to speak carefully about it together. Your prescription to not prescribe using it requires some justification.
The best way to use the tool is to have it click between rarely and sometimes. Anti-tracking tools may allow you to dial it up as well.
> The best way to use the tool is to have it click between rarely and sometimes
What you don't realize is most of the users are dumb and set it to maximum click through rate, because they think it is some form of achievement. Going against the advertising mafia, fooling Google, etc.
To load the ads you need to click on, it has to contact the adserver. If it contacts the adserver, what's the point of an adblocker?
Also, faking stuff (here, you are faking your interests by clicking random ads) for privacy reasons is good in only very few situations. The best way to remain private is to not give any info at all, instead of faking it. Faking stuff should be the secondary choice.
Hello. My name is [[h0p3]], and [[I aim|IA2DYJ]] to be a friend and an ally. I have looked through your history, and I can see it is my honor to meet you. Thank you for agreeing to speak with me. I admire your fervor and candor, nomad, and I can see that we have quite a bit in common (for example, I despise AMP with a passion, and you seem passionate about the topic too). I'm probably not as skilled with [[computers|Computing]] and prescription as you are, so go easy on me. Of course, I'm making it easier on myself by waiting too. Time has passed, and there are fewer people watching. The pressures are lower here now. Let us wrestle in dialectics openly and wisely together. We can also take our discussion off-site if you would be more comfortable.
> What you don't realize...
Hrm. Most people require more time and effort to figure out what I don't realize, including on this matter. I [[hope]] that we will one day know each [[other]] much better.
Your thesis is that using AdNauseam (presumably any use) is stupid and (because it?) will get one's accounts banned with Google and Cloudflare. You have not defended this claim (or these claims, if you meant them as disconnected propositions).
There are cases in which using AdNauseam is not stupid, and it is not inevitable that using it will get your accounts banned with these corporations. I'll agree (from practice) that its use can cause service problems for some people, but even that can be remedied (at least for now).
> most of the users are dumb and set it to maximum click through rate, because they think it is some form of achievement. Going against the advertising mafia, fooling Google, etc.
I don't see why I should think most current users behave in that fashion, but perhaps you have evidence you can show me (I've not looked). I'll agree that most prospective users are ignorant, though that doesn't mean they have to be: they have a choice. Surely you would agree: just because someone can use a tool in a stupid way doesn't mean any use of the tool is stupid. Encouraging people to understand and use their tools wisely seems reasonable. There is a path on which this tool can be used and developed wisely. Even if all it did was bring attention and experience to the problems in this sphere, it might be worth using in ways that we might otherwise deem "incorrect."
Should we discuss the merits of monkey-wrenching digital advertisement industries? Are you claiming this tool doesn't present a problem for Google's business model? Let me grant that this is an arms race, one that our adversaries are winning, and one that they will likely win. There is something to be achieved here though, and this tool does achieve something, however small. I will also agree there are much bigger fish to fry than this in the political problem of the continued centralization [[power]].
> To load the ads you need to click on, it has to contact the adserver. If it contacts the adserver, what's the point of an adblocker?
There are number of reasons one might use an adblocker, right?
Performance is one such reason. On my [[phone|monster-14]]'s 4G connection, my throughput is so slow that I can feel the difference between having ads and not. At home, I have a strong internet connection and a sufficiently fast [[computer|monster-16]] such that I often can't feel a sufficient difference. I use adblockers on both, but it sometimes serves an extra purpose on my phone.
We can consider [[privacy]] to be another reason, and an extremely complex one, no doubt.
I also consider the advertising industry to be immoral, but even if it weren't, I find ads (and an internet driven by ads) slow down my ability to find what is [[salient]]. Depending on what you mean, perhaps you and I will need to discuss the concept and practical concerns of "adfraud." Adblocking simplifies and improves the experience of acquiring knowledge and building relationships with [[others]] over digital mediums, and it enables us to take back some semblance of control of our [[political autonomy|Justice]].
An adblocker that still contacted the adserver (which will perhaps ultimately have to be done to bypass restrictions in this arms race) but eliminated the display of the content in my browser is still incredibly useful to me in a large number of contexts. Of course, our attention spans are at stake. Let us consider the spectacle together wisely.
> Also, faking stuff (here, you are faking your interests by clicking random ads) for privacy reasons is good in only very few situations. The best way to remain private is to not give any info at all, instead of faking it. Faking stuff should be the secondary choice.
I'll agree that adding polluting noise, in some cases, may disrupt their ability to model us to some [[dok]]. Attacking ad companies effectively enough may also provide some disincentives for them to attempt to model our private lives (though I think that is limited). It may be worth it even if it only raised the cost of online advertising. Among many methods, [[ML|Aispondence]] may eventually make this untenable, and the overwhelming effectiveness of fingerprinting is exceptionally problematic. Thus, I will also agree that this not the most important user-rights tool, not by a long shot! It still costs them something though. There are privacy trade-offs to be had here, and this is a low-hanging fruit method. Even in steganography, where part of privacy (or even anonymity) may require masquerading as a normal-looking user, we'd want to have some imitation clicks. My suggestion is that AdNauseam is barely even an alpha concept. There is still an arms race to consider here.
Continued use and development of AdNauseam doesn't have to be stupid.
> Hello. My name is [[h0p3]], and [[I aim|IA2DYJ]] to be a friend and an ally. I have looked through your history, and I can see it is my ...
I'm curious. Is it just your way of mocking me? Just wanted to know.
> You have not defended this claim
I do not have any proof of account banning, but I have been completely blocked by Google recaptcha when adnauseam is installed because I looked like a bot. I have been blocked twice.
> There are number of reasons one might use an adblocker, right?
Every reason (mobile data consumption, privacy, and page speed) can be achieved through uBlock origin. The only 'feature' adnauseam has over uBO is the automatic clicking.
> just because someone can use a tool in a stupid way doesn't mean any use of the tool is stupid
The problem is not that people can use this in a stupid way. People are using this in a stupid way. They set it to full click through rate and feel proud of standing up against the advertising mafia and are like 'Oh look at me, I'm faking my interests. I'm fooling Google and Facebook!!! So clever!'
> I'm curious. Is it just your way of mocking me? Just wanted to know.
No. I'm not mocking you. I am correcting you though (on a number of issues at this point). While I'm putting on a clinic here, I'm not trying to have fun at your expense. I'm quite serious. Your argument is not sound, and I'm trying to help you fix it (and your discourse), homie. Please pay attention.
If you really are curious and want to know: https://philosopher.life/ - I thought you might be inspired to think about my history given both how I thought about yours (and looking through your history, I see you've failed to learn from promoting your thesis more than once) and because you incorrectly presumed you knew what I didn't recognize (surely you will take the opportunity to gain perspective and context in coming to understand who you are speaking with). In any case, even this conversation will be finding its way into my wiki.
> I do not have any proof of account banning, but I have been completely blocked by Google recaptcha when adnauseam is installed because I looked like a bot. I have been blocked twice.
Okay, you'll agree you are retracting one of your original claims then, right? (Normally, it's polite to concede where you've lost in the argument. That's part of arguing in [[good]] [[faith]].)
> Every reason (mobile data consumption, privacy, and page speed) can be achieved through uBlock origin. The only 'feature' adnauseam has over uBO is the automatic clicking.
Obviously, I argued that the automatic clicking is a reason to use it in at least some cases. uBlock Origin does not cover every use case for dealing with ads.
You forgot to mention one of the primary reasons I gave: it prevents the display of ads. Now, look at the exact words you wrote in your argument: "If it contacts the adserver, what's the point of an adblocker?" So, are you agreeing that your counterpoint is nullified here, right? I demonstrated to you that there is still a reasonable point to using an adblocker that still contacts an adserver. That's at least two claims you've trotted out that turned out to be unjustified.
Don't you think a little humility on your part is in order here, my friend? Consider the possibility that you are wrong, please. We all make mistakes.
Also, since you continue to utter falsehoods as though they count as support for your thesis: that isn't the only additional feature that AdNauseam provides, but I'll agree it is far and away the primary one. Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that the feature is conceptually and always stupid: the burden of proof is on you here. I've already given you the counterexample.
Lastly, don't get me wrong: I'm a huge fan of uBlock Origin. When in doubt, that is what I recommend. There are people to whom I recommend AdNauseam though. There's a time and a place for the tool.
> The problem is not that people can use this in a stupid way. People are using this in a stupid way. They set it to full click through rate and feel proud of standing up against the advertising mafia and are like 'Oh look at me, I'm faking my interests. I'm fooling Google and Facebook!!! So clever!'
Hrm. Look at your logic again. Here's a substitution to show you why the argument doesn't have the validity you hope:
"The problem is not that people can use [a motorized vehicle] in a stupid way. People //are// using [motorized vehicles] in a stupid way." Note how my counterpoint clarifies how just because some people use a tool, be it a motorized vehicle or AdNauseam, in a way that is stupid doesn't mean that all uses of the tool are stupid. Using a motorized vehicle is not stupid in at least some cases, and the same is true of AdNauseam. Your thesis is overcommitted (try stating it differently).
Perhaps you might try to argue about how the average use of the tool is harmful, but you've not given that argument either. I'm prepared to take you to task there too, of course.
Note that you're ignoring multiple arguments I've made here. C'mon dude, do your due diligence, go ahead and walk through it line by line, charitably, please (just like I did for you). You might find your argument is substantially weaker when you actually try to address what I've said instead of sweeping it under the rug and repeating yourself.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that using "full click through rate" is stupid (and, problematically, you've not established even that, and I've already given you a reason that it isn't necessarily stupid). There is at least one person who doesn't use the "full click through rate" for the sake of costing advertisers money, and this counts as a non-stupid and non-trivially valuable function that uBlock Origin does not provide (note that this wasn't the only reason I gave for the value of false clickthroughs). Thus, even if I granted that "full click through rate" use was stupid (and I obviously didn't), your thesis does not stand. There is a counterexample.
You continue to offer an ad hominem attack on a strawmanned user, as though they represent all possible users and uses of this tool. Preference falsification is a weak aspect of the tool, and you're ignoring the strength of it. Have the integrity to look at the other reasons I've shown you, please. You might still want to argue that the reasons I've given you are stupid, but you've conveniently ignored addressing them instead. So far, at best, your argument is really against some users of the tool rather than the tool itself.
Note, also, how using the tool stupidly (or even just ignorantly) to some degree does not imply it's stupid to use the tool. You need to provide a reason for us to think the former implies the latter, and you haven't. It feels like you've had more trouble with the tool than most people (maybe you should take other people's anecdotal evidence into account if you expect them to take yours into account).
You may find it useful to at least attempt to reason out loud about how AdNauseam may function as both a protester's tool and a proof-of-concept educational object.
This is awesome. I thought about exactly doing that at one point, since I block most ads, although I do it via /etc/hosts instead of AdBlock, so that makes it a little harder.
I also have custom CSS/JS rules to block those infuriating chat box popups on various websites and thought it might be fun to not only block them but also run a chat bot on them in the background for every chat box that pops up unsolicited. Waste their time and maybe they will learn very quickly that unsolicited chat popups are the most annoying UX ever.
(To be clear, I love chat UIs for customer support -- but not unsolicited "Can I help you?" sales chat boxes that pop up and cover part of the screen before you have even had a chance to understand the product.)
You see, the main reason I block ads isn't because I disagree with advertising. Advertising itself is fine.
I block ads because:
- They are often bloated with CPU-intensive JavaScript that makes my web experience less than smooth. I demand that scrolling and other UI actions be imperceptibly fast, and 90% of the time I find it's ads that are the culprit in making them perceptibly slow.
- They are often loaded with tracking and fingerprinting spyware. I blocked Facebook ads as soon as they started showing me stuff that I had searched for on eBay and Amazon. Like, WTF. Big nope. I was fine with the ads, but not that level of tracking and sharing user data across companies.
As such, I block ads in protest of the above. But if I establish a mechanism that clicks the ads in the background, they don't have to know whether it is me or a robot that clicked them -- as far as they are concerned my residence is a black box, and there are some intelligent beings inside this black box that click the ads, some of those intelligent beings are made of silicon and some are made of carbon, and they don't need to know the chemistry of what being caused the click. At some point in the far future of civilization and humanity, I expect biological chemistry to be abstracted out, and laws in place to not discriminate on the chemistry of a being, and economies will have to be rebuilt around that assumption. I'm just living that future now, and as far as the big companies are concerned, they can start thinking about new monetization models now that better align the collective incentives of my blacxbox with theirs.
Traditional ads don't influence my purchasing behavior much either. I'm not their typical consumer. So it wouldn't have made a difference. My purchasing decisions are based more on a combination of first principles and friend/coworker recommendations.
Now there's the issue of how ads might drive revenue, and that's how the internet is kept free. Sure. But I think there are other ways to drive that than the current iteration of ads. Social-media-ify it, gamify it, make it fun, and I'll actually want to interact with the ads. Make me have to play a game to get a $1 Starbucks discount, and I might play -- and go to Starbucks! You see, carbon-based lifeforms love coffee, and love games, so the possibility of a discount on that might actually make me want to play the game.
But none of this tracking-spyware-CPU-bloat-while-I'm-trying-to-do-something-else please. Plain <a href="foo"><img src="blah"></a>, no megabyte-sized images, and no cross-site sharing of user data? If they can agree to that, I'll stop blocking.
You are replying to someone who depends on ads for money. Hard to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on it and all that, he's all over the thread crying but not actually refuting any points of the comments he replies to (such as yours).
Do you also use other services and then impose your will on how payment will be made? Maybe grocery stores would be better if they worked on subscription. Do you also think it would be justifiable to run out the door with all the shit you want then mail a check later?
Nope. Those are physical goods. They hand me an avocado in return for $1.50. Actual ownership of that avocado is fully transferred at that cost.
How my system renders code, or renders a webpage, and which instructions it chooses to run or not run, are upto me, as the owner of the system. Nobody else has the right to control over my hardware. They can only make suggestions, but the final decision about which lines of code are allowed to run are mine. No transfer of ownership occurs.
Nobody is trying to control your hardware, you agreed to receiving ads as a part of the terms of service, and then willfully violated those terms.
To use a non-physical example, how is this any different than signing an agreement with a lawyer to give you legal advice, receiving said legal advice, and then refusing to pay?
> you agreed to receiving ads as a part of the terms of service
No, for 95% of the sites I read, I don't need to accept any terms of service. Hell, even the ones I do, often don't mention anything about ad blocking. I can't see anything directly prohibiting ad blocking here on the Facebook ToS, for example:
> how is this any different than signing an agreement with a lawyer
ToS and a contract with a lawyer are very different things. It is not generally a crime to violate a ToS, but rather, merely a breech of agreement, and they can refuse service in return. If I violate a ToS, they can block me from using the site, and that's about the most they can do, unless I intentionally harmed the company (e.g. hacked other user data or compromised their servers).
(In the particular case of Facebook, it would also probably not be in their interest to block me, because I post a lot of original content to the platform that causes other users to spend more time on Facebook, and my presence on the platform is highly likely a net positive for them cash-wise.)
Is your viewpoint on the morality of agreements that it is morally justifiable to break those which are not legally enforceable, but not morally justifiable to break those which are? Or to state it a different way, the law defines morality.
I think law and morality are two totally separate concepts.
I operate by morality, but my risk tolerance is bound by legality. For example, for any human rights issue X, will I speak out for X in a place that has free speech but not yet legalized X? Absolutely. Will I speak out for X in a place that I might get a $100 fine? Probably. Will I speak out for X in a place that I might get jailed or beheaded? Probably not.
In this case though I don't consider it immoral to violate certain ToS terms, especially when they track and sell user data and don't offer a clear opt-in/out option to that, and perhaps even doubly on the sites that I actively contribute useful content to the platform in good faith, and the legal risk is extremely low.
If you're goal is to get the pages, that you value enough to view, to move to some other way to get money from your use of their service (which I assume you think should be free), then there's no downside.
As others have said, any service doing fraud prevention might ban you. It doesn't seem to be happening yet, but that could change any time it got popular and they would be pretty justified doing it.
I know you're being obtuse, but the fraud is that someone is paying for you to look at those ads. You're under no obligation to actually do it, of course, and the site is under no obligation to let you use it, hence the ban.
it's not just windows per say, the fact that you can have multiple linux installations without going through the hassle of setting up something like vmware or virtualbox (with all of their quirks) is such a timesaver.
while the concept looks simple enough, i think it would covey the idea better to have actual screenshots from the various platforms.
also, if you want to get more people using i would suggest creating a wordpress plugin since that is the platform that most digital agencies (your target market) use for SEO.
Any public or government job will require a background check, most private jobs don't. That doesn't mean you can't get a government job. I will say that the doors are there, you just have to have the courage to knock.
I don't think it's fair or wise to tell people this, do you any data to support this claim?
I don't know any career track companies that don't do background checks, there are too many services now that make them insanely easy to do, that it's basically uploading a resume and/or filling out the form and you can get results back the same day.
yes i do cause i've worked in both the government and private sectors. all government jobs required a background check and some even security clearance. quite a few private did also, but most of them don't cause they don't want to spend the money on them or down right don't care about your past cause they have a past themselves. i will say that just because you have a criminal record doesn't mean that you are automatically disqualified. you just have to be upfront and tell before they do the background check. the whole thing is that everyone hates wasting their time. if you tell them up front that you have a history most will thank you and tell you not to worry about it. that is why i'm saying that you have to courage to knock on the door. lots of people see that the job requires a background check and immediately move on disqualifying themselves.
Firstly, I'm not saying not to try, certainly you should, hard to get a job without applying.
But I do not think its a fair expectation to say "most of them don't cause they don't want to spend the money on them or down right don't care about your past."
I've never seen anything that what would lead me to believe that "most" is accurate, and at best "some" would be closer to accurate.
Basic background checks aren't expensive, and take almost no time to complete, goodhire is an example where even small companies can get a background check done for $30-$50 per applicant.
Again, I'm not saying don't apply, but I don't think its a good idea to tell people "most don't care" because they are going to likely face an uphill battle, and that many people are going to hold a criminal history against them.
I do agree that being upfront about it, is the best choice, and
if I was to make a recommendation, it would be to seek expungement where possible, and stack your training, certifications, and references as much as possible to attempt to overcome the issue.
this is ridiculous, "the workers who take up the offer will have to take a 10% cut to their compensation." so you get 20K up front, which as jdavis mention, could be used up in moving, then you have to accept a 10% pay cut. so in reality, you're losing all around. just because someone moves to a new area, doesn't mean they should be punished by having a decrease in salary. this is way a scumbaggish way for a company to make money. anyone working for stripe better rethink things and go work for another company.
That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Workers that are paid massive salaries in the likes of SF & NYC is because the cost of living in those cities justify it.
So you're on 150k in SF say, you move to, I don't know some small city in Texas, you get 20k to move, you make 135k a year and your cost of living has probably dropped by 70%. That doesn't sound like a "scumbaggish" move to me. That sounds like a company trying to entice it's employees to get out of the crazy expensive cities.
>Workers that are paid massive salaries in the likes of SF & NYC is because the cost of living in those cities justify it.
This is incorrect. Workers are paid massive salaries because those same workers have an option of going to other employers who are willing to offer massive salaries.
Employers offer massive salaries when they can't find anyone cheaper. Just like people pay more for desirable beach front or mountain view property. Not only does it have to be desirable, but it has to be in relatively limited supply, such that the seller has options and so the buyer has to compete to win the seller, and obviously payer has to be able to pay.
Edit: If you continue down the road of reasoning, the desirability of an employee is related to how much net income the employee contributes to. The employer is betting that the work a specific programmer does will be integral to yielding billions in profit, so a few hundred thousand is a no brainer.
In contrast, a hotel on a desirable piece of land does not need to offer housekeepers massive salaries even though the work the housekeepers do is integral to the hotel's profits, because the housekeepers individually are more replaceable than a programmer.
Edit #2:
Note that doctors get paid more in rural, low cost of living areas than in high cost of living areas.
It's a market economy. No one decided one day to offer a certain salary, the market has figured it out over time (and will continue to do so as conditions change).
you know what's pretty ridiculous... your 25 minutes old account attempting to call me out. you work for stripe or at another company that's doing or planning this?
Attacking the messenger because you have no rebuttal. Also, it is ridiculous reading comments that have the sentence structure of a person still in primary school.
>They could easily be paying half their rent (and could approach paying just 20% depending on the situation.) Most people will probably save money.
I was offered this "choice" back in 2013. Despite the fact that I (and my co-workers) were almost completely remote already, we were told that if we didn't relocate to Tallahassee, FL from NYC and accept a 20% pay cut, we would need to find new employment.
Even worse, should we accept this "generous offer" we would be guaranteed employment for 12 months (presumably long enough for them to find and hire locals who are compensated less, then have us train them).
I did the math and while I could certainly save on rent, the costs of an automobile, its fuel and maintenance, including insurance made the transition close to a wash for me.
I'd also point out that NYC is a wonderful, urban place to live. While Tallahassee is a typical sprawling, suburban place with limited (although more so than some other parts of Florida due to UofFL and it being the state capital) culturally diverse stuff.
I chose not to do so (as did all but one of my colleagues -- who did so at great personal sacrifice to make sure she could continue to support her family) and haven't looked back.
My experience is that such plans tend to be a salary dump by the company, made worse by the ability to slowly replace those who relocate with much cheaper local resources.
Why would you want to uproot your life (and that of your family, if you have one) just so you can be replaced by someone cheaper in the not-so-distant future?
That's not to say such a plan isn't a good thing for some people, but I found it to be not worth it.
I think you're overreacting. If you're making, say, $400k in total comp at Stripe in San Francisco (which doesn't seem unreasonable[0]), you could move somewhere with drastically lower cost of living for a cut of only $40k a year. There aren't very many opportunities to live wherever you want and make $360k, period, so it's still likely a net win for the employees.
California also has one of the highest state sales tax rates, and individual counties also put their own sales taxes on top of that, which can add up to 10.5% in the worst case, so you get taxed "coming and going".
The administration of sales tax was baffling to me when in California. Things had a price on them and when I got to the counter the price paid was different. However the amount paid seemed to vary across California. How this came to be and how it is tolerated remains a mystery to me.
In the US, sales tax is not listed in the price unlike VAR in Europe. Counties and Cities often have additional and varying sale taxes in addition to the State's percentage.
