lnl

The parent comment is talking about distractions, not ads. YouTube has plenty of those, even embedded YouTube videos, unless you pause the video before it ends. uBlock Origin Lite cannot block elements except through packaged rulesets, and while there are some ad-blocker lists that are meant to block annoyances on pages in addition to ads, everybody has a different idea on what is an annoyance on a webpage.

I use PotPlayer, which can show two subtitles at once; also, when you click on a word, it can search it in the search engine of your choice (e.g. a dictionary). You can also add multiple search engines (as well as "Copy to clipboard" command) accessible when you right click a word instead of left clicking. You can also assign a shortcut (e.g. Ctrl+C) to copy the whole subtitle visible on the screen, to paste in Google Translate etc. I use all of those features, and it significantly helped in my English learning in my teens (and later other languages).

Previously I used KMPlayer by the same developer, which supported not just two but three simultaneous subtitles (which I sometimes used, as strange as it may sound); but I switched to PotPlayer when he sold the program and it started to be bundled with ads.

Both programs are only available on Windows, and lack of something as featureful and customizable as PotPlayer was one of the reasons my brief flirtation with Linux at the start of this year wasn't that satisfactory. But if all you want is multiple subtitles, I found SMPlayer on Linux that did the job; but the features of PotPlayer/KMPlayer is simply unmatched (beyond just language learning).

While I am happy that Notepad++ added a dark mode, I am frustrated that Microsoft forced Notepad++ (and all Windows programs) to add hacky workarounds for a dark mode.

Notepad++ already obeys the Windows system colors, and I have been using it in dark mode by changing Windows colors. Microsoft, presumably to sabotage classical programs and to push modern UWP apps, no longer allows changing system colors. There is a Windows 10 Dark Mode instead, and all it does it notify programs about its configuration, so that they redraw all their colors. A vestige of customizable system colors that remains is the (ugly) High Contrast Mode (activated with Alt+Shift+PrtSc); but if one can put up with its ugliness, it works much better than the Windows 10 Dark Mode, changing the theme for all well-written Windows programs, including all versions of Notepad++.

With the UWP mostly dead, I was hoping that they would start caring about "legacy" programs, but nope. Notepad++, as well as many other programs I use and contribute, saw that Windows was not fixing this and started adding their own patchy dark modes, which often don't work that well. I tested the new Notepad++ dark mode, to see maybe I can start using Dark Mode instead of High Contrast Theme. Unsurprisingly, many places (settings, dropdowns etc.) remain with white backgrounds; it is difficult to change all backgrounds as it was written with obeying system colors in mind, rather than manual theming. High Contrast Theme, however, works perfectly. Presumably those remaining white patches will be fixed as Notepad++ has an active community, but dozens of other old Windows programs I use will probably never bother with explicitly adding a dark theme, so I guess I will have to stick with the High Contrast Mode.

The only cases that I can think of are me doing something stupid, like posting my password somewhere public by mistake (e.g. using KeePass password auto-typing on comment field instead of password field, or pasting it in a wrong place if I am copy-pasting), or a phishing attack where I foolishly insist on copy-pasting my password when it doesn't auto-type. But even in those cases, 2FA would indeed be of very limited help since:

1) In the first case, chances are that I would realize this immediately and change my password, which I would have time to do as there is no actual attacker yet; only future opportunistic attackers. 2FA would be useful only if I not only pasted my password and 2FA code, but then not even realized it. Then 2FA might help since by the time anybody notices this, the 2FA code would be invalid.

2) In the second case, if the phishing attack is not real-time (i.e. attackers are just recording my credentials instead of immediately logging in in my place), 2FA would help since the 2FA they stored would be invalid when they tried using it. 2FA is less helpful in a real-time phishing attack; though having 2FA might still help since changing my login credentials would presumably require another 2FA code so at least they can't lock me out (unless they can convince me that I need to enter another 2FA code, which I guess is possible if I was absent-minded enough to fall for it in the first place).

In any case, I don't worry much about these scenarios and I agree with you about 2FA, that's why I don't usually bother with it except in cases where websites freak out because I keep logging in from foreign IPs with no cookies. Then 2FA is useful because it makes the website trust my login, at no additional inconvenience to me as KeePass auto-types 2FA code just like my password, so I don't mind enabling it when I can.

> you're back to 1 factor (your password manager master password)

That's only true if you are using an online service as a password manager, so the master password is the only thing protecting you. Not necessarily for offline password managers. E.g. in my case, I use Keepass that I never sync/store online, so even without enabling a website's 2FA, for many attack models I am effectively using 2FA: logging into the website requires both something I have (a device with my Keepass database) and something I know (the password for my Keepass database). But without website 2FA those two factors then produce one single factor (the website's password) that is transmitted to log in, so enabling website's 2FA and storing it in Keepass makes it 2FA against even more attack models, i.e. attacks where it's not my password database that it compromised, but just that one password. So it's still a benefit.

If I ever feel the need to sync my Keepass database, e.g. on Dropbox; I could set a key file (that I transferred offline between my devices) in addition to the master password to preserve this 2FA aspect, so that even if my Dropbox password and Keepass master password were both compromised, they would still be useless without access to my devices that contain the key file. But I never had the need to use my password manager on a different device, so no syncing needed so far. In any case, I don't actually care about 2FA (when I enable 2FA, I actually do it to decrease security, not increase it, as I explained in my other comment), this 2FA is just a bonus of my not needing and liking online services.

In my case, I actually enable 2FA mostly for convenience, rather than security. I often log in from different country IPs (VPN), I auto delete cookies, often use private mode, etc., so some websites are frequently suspicious about my login and ask me for an additional step to verify, e.g. by asking an additional question or sending an email with a verification code. There is usually no way to manually disable this additional check; nor do websites seem to learn that logging in from different IPs with no cookies is my usual behavior. Enabling 2FA makes websites have more trust in my login, so I get none of those additional verifications, with no additional inconvenience as 2FA stored in password manager and typed automatically just like the password. So in a way I enable 2FA in order to disable 2FA.

> “Our goal is to make money, and not creating problems for society,”

> It's a pretty big problem for society when hospitals, universities, and countless business have been ransomed.

Well, at least their "ethics" page does state that they will not attack "hospitals, hospices, schools, universities, non-profit organizations, or government agencies".

> When you phrase it in a way that suggests the host's choice is itself random, people get it wrong.

In other words, they still get it right; they get it right for the separate question that that phrasing implies.

If the host's choice is random, so that when you initially picked wrong it's equally probable that the host open the door with the car and then say "sorry, looks like you lost" (which is what I assumed when I first heard this problem, not being familiar with the show), then even if the host happened to open the door with a goat and give you a chance to switch, it doesn't matter if you take it or not. People are correct that, for that question, the probabilities are one in two for both of the remaining doors.

I just dislike library software in general. I like files, I like keeping files neatly in folders and subfolders (and adding tags in filenames if necessary), so that I can easily use whatever software I like at the time on whatever platform to view or edit them, without ever being dependent on any. I organize all my movies, music, photos, documents, etc. this way, and I didn't want to hand over my ebooks to some software to keep it organized in its own way.

I don't even like it if a program scans my existing files to form a database without affecting them; but as long as it's not too in-my-face I guess I don't mind it so much; as I can get rid of the software and its database whenever I like, and I wouldn't notice anything was different. But Calibre decidedly takes the opposite approach, so, as the link says, I decided it's not for me. There are many parts of Calibre that I thought I might find useful, but it would be tiring to fight against a software that actively tries to work fundamentally differently than the way I like. (And I did try it, but using it felt almost as frustrating as using much of Apple software; it's an agony unless you use it exactly the way they want.) That's why I don't have Calibre installed on my computer even just for those useful parts; I just found other software to do things I like. Which is sad, because as an ebook user I really tried to like Calibre, and I really thought I would because I tend to love software that people criticize as "ugly/not modern" and "too cluttered/bloated". If only those things came with a package that didn't make it its "mission" to get me "to stop storing metadata in filenames and stop using the filesystem to find things".

I find it interesting that ads are considered acceptable and commonplace in Android and to a slightly lesser extent iOS apps; but on desktop they are seen as almost malware.

To be clear, I also avoid it when I can, and most of the time ad-free or open-source alternatives are available (in this case I have been using WinSCP). I dislike the mobile app ecosystem with its plethora of garbage, privacy invading apps; and I am glad that desktop apps usually aren't like that. But if a program is much better than its alternatives and the ads are not too annoying, I guess I don't mind supporting its development via ads. Being a poor person from a poor country, I couldn't afford purchasing the program or donating to it, so ads sound like one way of supporting a program I like so much (though my ad views are probably worthless for the same reason).

The only adware program I actually have is PotPlayer (the only thing that comes close is KMPlayer, which I used before; but it's originally built by the same developer and added ads even earlier). I think a few other programs I use had adware-bundled installers (e.g. JDownloader, CDisplayEx,...) but I had found adware-free installers. Even in the case of PotPlayer, it doesn't show ads, just an empty window (maybe again because I am in a poor country?) so I blocked the empty "ads" via hosts file. What's the point of annoying myself if that's not even supporting the developer? But if PotPlayer actually showed ads to me; assuming it didn't upload my private data and no comparable open-source/ad-free program emerged, I feel like I should be fine with it rarely showing some ads in the corner.

His writing really reminded me of my high school bullies. I couldn't help but imagine him reciting these lines against me with a smirk in his face.

Just a passing remark would have been bad enough, but he devotes a significant percent of his article to it even though it is not even tangentially related to his point. He clearly just enjoys mocking it so much.

I am not talking about Germany at all, certainly not Germany of today. I think you missed that we are talking about a hypothetical future where a prospective dictator with overwhelming support is concentrating power. It already happened in my country; it's not happening in Germany and you correctly identified the reason ("It would see the most trusted state organ protecting the Basic Law."), not because of any entrenchment clause or even supposedly recursive entrenchment clause.