v1tyaz
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
There's really no reason for privacy conscious individuals to use Ghostery when uBlock Origin can do the exact same thing.
[1] https://www.ghostery.com/intelligence/consumer-blog/consumer...
I have around 40 feeds right now, and I look forward to updates because I'm subscribed to a lot of interesting content without a whole bunch of filler. But here's the thing: even if I don't have time to read everything, I just click "mark all as read." That's why that button exists. The world doesn't end when I click it. It's not like e-mail where I have to read through everything to make sure I don't need to reply to someone. I continue on with my day and await future updates.
The whole argument about an "app-centric world" and having so many things open at once is completely irrelevant because it rests on the faulty assumption that RSS readers are demanding of users. They're not, if you're using them efficiently. And even if they were, I have a really hard time believing that having 30+ tabs and 10+ programs open at once is "not atypical". Maybe for the extremely heavy web users, but not for the average person.
If you insist on being subscribed to a ton of RSS feeds and only want the best posts, then perhaps you'd like Digg Reader. I haven't explored it too much, but they display a little dot beside the most popular items (as determined by social media). I'm pretty sure NewsBlur also tries to figure out which content you're the most interested in, but I haven't tried it out either.
Unless it's your data that's being downloaded unlawfully, right?
Sorry, but you're being completely unrealistic. Do you honestly think JStor would be able to rake in nearly as many donations as Wikipedia does with a userbase that is no where near as big as them? The people behind JStor aren't some cabal that just loves charging people a ton of money for access to journal articles (key word being access). If it were feasible to use donations and volunteers alone to provide their service to the general public for free, they would've done that.
> No it doesn't. All you need to do is free the publicly funded data.
I'm getting tired of this pointless philosophical debate. Hosting the articles is a small portion of what JStor actually does. When this Public.Resource.Org group goes to the library and digitizes all these journals, including tagging and sorting them, let me know if they'll still be able to provide them for free. Hint: they won't. Unless they keep getting people to unlawfully access them from an organization that does, that is.
If JStor were some big corporation that was raking in millions of dollars each year, then you'd have a point, but they're not. They are a non-profit that is doing excellent work.
This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap