So do you feel the naming was inherently misleading which led you astray? Because incognito mode absolutely kept things 'sneaky' in terms of hiding the things I look up from other people who use the same computer. Which is specifically what Google said it would do and showed examples of in TV commercials. And it definitely did (and still does) that.
I'm also struggling to understand what you feel you 'trusted' Google on exactly. What did they tell you that you believed but, as it turns out, was not true?
I can bitch about chrome all day long... but none of that bitching will be about incognito mode as that was and continues to be an useful feature that did exactly what I expected it to do. Everything it said it did, it did.
Just because people made up their own imaginary ideas about what they think it does isn't really Google's fault. If people think snorkels allow them to scuba dive and then drown, I'm not about to blame the snorkel maker that wrote 'diving googles and snorkel' on the packaging.
The amount of words needed to fully explain this to tech illiterate idiots would be so many that those idiots would just argue they cannot be expected to read all of it. These people already do this with the terms + conditions documents they agree to.
Incognito mode did every single thing it said it did and behaved exactly as I expected from day one. Is there a single user here who actually was surprised by how it worked? Did anyone honestly think it was like Tor or something? Why? Where did anyone ever get that idea at all?
It seems the whole last decade has been focused on dumbing the Internet down for the dumbest 10% of the population. The Internet was better when it was less inclusive.
I smoked weed in Thailand as a 15 year old in like 2006 lol. It's always been there and always will be.
I've also smoked hash in Saudi Arabia. I have yet to find a single country in which I could not find cannabis in if around for more than a week or two. Literally no one has ever won the war on drugs or even come close.
And I'd be fine with the neighbors cooking up a smelly fish meal if they could just make that food odorless.
But obviously they can't and that makes no sense, so instead I am a normal human being and just deal with a smell that is not to my preference since it's completely subjective and can't hurt me.
I hope when I'm old they just decide to let my generation suffer to correct this fundamentally flawed system that will inevitably collapse at some point. It's based upon the impossible notion of infinite growth.
I totally agree with you about immigration, but I tend to look at the population issue from a world wide perspective. And from that perspective the population goes up every single year without fail, which to me is a major problem that I hope our species will find a way to overcome.
Wrong? I see people deciding not to have kids as fundamentally a good thing. Coercion into having kids due to government pressure or social norms seems a whole lot more wrong to me. It's ok to not want kids, it's not some sort of disorder that needs fixing.
I would absolutely love to see the population go down, even for like a single day, within my lifetime. But considering we've added over 2 billion people to the population since I was a kid...I don't have high hopes.
Per capita emissions can only be calculated in relation to the total population. It's a required part of the formula.
Basically, I'd much prefer a world where 4 billion people get to live a life where pointless 'for fun' things like travel or going to a ski resort are ok emissions wise. I don't at all want a world where 20 billion people have the same amount of emissions at the 4 billion mentioned above, but with 5x less resource use per person.
What total world population do you feel is reasonable while also maintaining some semblance of quality of life?
Aww man I thought I found one! Guess I'm back down to zero people.