zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
I feel like I have to repeat this, since so much is at stake here, where it is about the preservation of the web as we know it today, at the peril of having it turned into yet another walled garden:

The only way around the dystopia this will lead to is to constantly and relentlessly shame and even harass all those involved in helping create it. The scolding in the issue tracker of that wretched "project" shall flow like a river, until the spirit of those pursuing it breaks, and the effort is disbanded.

And once the corporate hydra has regrown its head, repeat. Hopefully, enough practise makes those fighting the dystopia effective enough to one day topple over sponsoring and enabling organisations as a whole, instead of only their little initiatives leading down that path.

Not a pretty thing, but necessary.

>>c0l0+h3
Is https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... the best place to shame?

>>foobar+M4
Yoav Weiss is closing concern threads, calling them "spam."

Ben Wiser ( https://benwiser.com ) turned off comments altogether.

>>jjoona+v6
Yoav Weiss has a blog post from 6 days ago on his website. https://blog.yoav.ws/

for a personal blog it has quite a lot of PR speak

>>qjx+4n
> When thinking about a new proposal, it's often safe to assume that Occam's razor is applicable and the reason it is being proposed is that the team proposing it is trying to tackle the use cases the proposal handles.

Ockham's Razor doesn't apply in an adversarial situation.

>>carapa+Dr
It is also for when you are comparing two explanations that do an equally good job of explaining empirical data.

"Google is an advertising company and does whatever leads to more profitable advertisements" does a much better job of explaining Google's actions than "Google just wants to build the best possible browser", so it should be preferred even though it is a more complicated explanation.