kv

I can tell you from experience this is wrong. After using an adblocker for years, I made the mistake of browsing the web for a bit without. That "experiment" only lasted a few days, maybe a couple weeks, before I just couldn't take it anymore. I was blown away by just how bad it was, because I had forgotten it was that bad and it probably got even worse in the time I'd been blocking ads. Since then, I've been blocking them again, and things are much better. And yes, adblockers can break websites, but a simple setup like Brave's built-in blocker or uBO's easy mode rarely does this and is fairly easy to fix. Using uBO in advanced mode will break things a lot, but it's usually not too difficult with some practice to get them working, and once done it's good to go.
 
The only viable way to block ads if websites are set up hardcore to prevent it might be to block all third-party scripts, but most websites aren't, so that's not the only viable way. And people already maintain adblock lists.
 
It's already been pointed out, but it's worth mentioning again: the FBI themselves are warning that it exists, and examples of fake search results have been posted here and many people here have seen them. And the ad/link itself doesn't need to be a virus; it just needs to lead to a page where a virus will be downloaded due to the user thinking they're on the legitimate page. Considering the FBI bulletin and the fact this stuff most definitely exists, it's hard not to question your motives in making such statements, especially things like "[a]sk someone for proof."
 
It is due to blocking scripts generally, though occasionally due to blocking other content types. If I'm in a hurry or it's a site I don't plan to revisit, I'll disable the adblock as well, but it's worth the time to configure it so the site works properly.
 
I've been using various ad blockers for years. Adblock Plus, uBO, uMatrix, Brave's integrated blocking, and probably one or two more I'm forgetting. Ad blockers most definitely do fix these things.
 
I hate to question your "expertise" because I don't know what you do, but many of your statements just don't line up with reality, at least not my and others' version of it, so I do have to wonder a bit. And IME, "tech support" absolutely does not equal expert. As for your number, not only has it been pointed out, with references, that it's (unsurprisingly) massive hyperbole, but as I said before, it's not just ads that are themselves viruses, but ones that link to malicious sites.
 
I, and the FBI, have seen bad ads on Google. But apparently I was pirating directly from Google and the FBI is full of it.
First of all, that's not what those news companies achieved. What they achieved was the right to be paid for content they produced that companies like Facebook were using to make money off of without sharing it. It's strange how the companies that make the most off of ads are also the ones that seem the most ready to rip off others.
 
As has been pointed out, there's no need to find you an example right now, because there are numerous examples from the recent past. That's like saying show me an example right now of a car being stolen on your street. You can't? Then why lock it. And as has also been pointed out already, firewalls exist and are used for a reason, and ad blockers are no different. And I certainly hope that you're not plugging your PC directly into the modem. I mean, go for it if you want, but being an "expert," I hope you're not advising others to do so.
 
Referring to people that disagree with you as the "peanut gallery" isn't going to help your argument; it only diminishes it and yourself. But, since you dumbed it down for us, it's nice to see that you feel "[y]ou can do whatever the hell you want with the content when it arrives on your computer." So you've officially sanctioned the use of ad blockers, since they take the content that arrives on the computer and parse it to execute some of it and not execute some of it.
 
And that may be the message they're choosing to take away from it, but it's not the message I'm sharing. The message I'm sharing is I don't want pages to take multiple seconds to load, eating up bandwidth and battery, only to have them jump around every time I scroll or move the mouse and cause me to click on links I didn't mean to because they won't sit still. And I don't want to be browsing sites only to have NSFW or embarrassing ads showing. And I don't want situations like my parents had where one of them was looking at things for the other as a gift, i.e. secret, and ads for it started showing for the other. It's beyond ridiculous.
 
I pay for subscription services if the service is worth subscribing to and if I support the company. Unfortunately, most aren't worth it or the company is not worth supporting, in which case I try to find alternatives.
You seem to be the one speaking that way, because you're not even making the point you're trying to make. Just because they make it hostile to modders doesn't make it illegal. Just like sites can be hostile to people that block ads, but that doesn't make it illegal to block them.
The context was absolutely not about shopping. From the notice:
They're specifically talking here about downloads. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what context it's in, as it carries over to other areas.
 
And your argument about the SEO results is akin to saying that there's no point in locking your doors since a burglar can break in through the windows, i.e. since it doesn't protect 100% against everything, it has no use.
 
I looked at that a few years back. It's a nice idea, though I had some issues with it, but I think the developer dealt with that. At some point I need to give it another look. But there's still one big problem with it: by clicking in the background, you're stealing from the companies that are advertising since they're paying for clicks without actually getting views. Ok, that's mostly sarcasm, because I don't really care, and the advertisers (Google, Facebook, various companies that sell ads) steal from those companies much more than users ever could, a point that some people seem to miss. Though I will say that given the choice, blocking ads--which deprives the site of revenue while sparing my bandwidth and battery, speeding up my browsing experience, and telling them what I think of their ads--will often be preferable to this approach, which simply fosters the behavior while losing the other benefits and cheating the advertising companies. But it depends on the site, e.g. I have no issue at all blocking them and depriving revenue from Google/Facebook/etc whereas other sites I'd be more inclined to not do so, but then that's just more work. Maybe a combination of uBO for some sites and adnauseam for others would be best.

Yea, when there is actually a service agreement figuring out what is allowed and not is much easier. That's why a lot of places require free account and an agreement to TOS etc, it gives them those types of powers. Also when it comes to video streaming services they do a lot of work to prevent blocking of ads and downloading of content (when not allowed), doesn't always work though.
 
All civil matters though, not criminal. Could be with a really good argument and a supporting situation that would tip it that way. Like the difference between downloading and distributing, civil vs criminal.
 
Like I said about Linus and it applies to basically everyone, ad-block is a moral and ethical opinion with no clear law or legal precedent that applies to it and the additional factor of there being legitimate use cases for it. Going in to "it's definitely this is a really bad move". It's a debate that will never be settled by a topic on this forum that is for sure lol

I prefer 60fps+. The only reason 24/30fps feels 'cinematic' is we've had over 100 years of conditioning due to a decision to save film stock. There's no practical reason for it to remain that way, after all - sports are broadcasted at high framerates and no one bats an eye on 'the soap opera-effect'.

The value of a 'used' key is to be determined by the buyer and seller. No different to any other transaction of this nature. (Heck one could argue certain versions of a game could be considered a 'condition'). Either way, I can transfer my Windows key to another user's computer as part of a private transaction. No one bats an eye.
 
You bring up a good point about how the sale is transacted - preferrably there should be a way to 'cash-out' and not have the credit be limited to the Steam/MS/PSN/Nintendo/Epic store.

The value of a 'used' key is to be determined by the buyer and seller. No different to any other transaction of this nature. (Heck one could argue certain versions of a game could be considered a 'condition'). Either way, I can transfer my Windows key to another user's computer as part of a private transaction. No one bats an eye.
 
You bring up a good point about how the sale is transacted - preferrably there should be a way to 'cash-out' and not have the credit be limited to the Steam/MS/PSN/Nintendo/Epic store.

The resistance to this idea reminds me of the outcry that happened when Steam was forced to provide refund. We were all told the world would end for game devs but here we are years later.
 
A seller doesn't have a right to control what I do with the thing I bought.

Full story: https://www.polygon.com/2018/8/11/17661254/bethesda-sell-used-games-amazon-block
 
In what could be described as a massive overreach - Bethesda is sending take-down notices to vendors re-selling Bethesda products on places like Amazon and eBay If left unchallenged, this could impact the scope of the 'First Sale Doctrine' in the United States, which offers legal protection for re-selling goods. The action in question
 
The seller's reason for the listing
 
Bethesda's letter and the seller's response
 
Bethesda's justification - specifically pointing to the lack of warranty determines that the product is 'materially different' from the 'genuine product' (A legal benchmark for the first sale doctrine).
 
Bethesda's legal threats
 

Full story: https://www.polygon.com/2018/8/11/17661254/bethesda-sell-used-games-amazon-block
 
In what could be described as a massive overreach - Bethesda is sending take-down notices to vendors re-selling Bethesda products on places like Amazon and eBay If left unchallenged, this could impact the scope of the 'First Sale Doctrine' in the United States, which offers legal protection for re-selling goods. The action in question
 
The seller's reason for the listing
 
Bethesda's letter and the seller's response
 
Bethesda's justification - specifically pointing to the lack of warranty determines that the product is 'materially different' from the 'genuine product' (A legal benchmark for the first sale doctrine).
 
Bethesda's legal threats
 

The virtual console ports have been known to be notoriously bad ports of those games. The S/NES minis, while much better are not the most elegant way to address this. The obvious answer that's staring them in the face (and to some extent MS have demonstrated via BC etc) is a netflix-style subscription where the user can get access to the full library of S/NES titles - accurately emulated for a reasonable price. Nintendo are dropping the ball hard.
 
1:52:00 into this podcast does a great job explaining the situation
https://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/the-giant-beastcast-episode-168/1600-2426/

Full story: https://www.polygon.com/2018/8/11/17661254/bethesda-sell-used-games-amazon-block
 
In what could be described as a massive overreach - Bethesda is sending take-down notices to vendors re-selling Bethesda products on places like Amazon and eBay If left unchallenged, this could impact the scope of the 'First Sale Doctrine' in the United States, which offers legal protection for re-selling goods. The action in question
 
The seller's reason for the listing
 
Bethesda's letter and the seller's response
 
Bethesda's justification - specifically pointing to the lack of warranty determines that the product is 'materially different' from the 'genuine product' (A legal benchmark for the first sale doctrine).
 
Bethesda's legal threats
 

He just released a video talking about how Apple tried to sue a 3rd party repair shop for 'unauthorized repairs'. Luckily Apple lost that case - even gives a shout-out to Linus.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNl2q6YZXlA

He just released a video talking about how Apple tried to sue a 3rd party repair shop for 'unauthorized repairs'. Luckily Apple lost that case - even gives a shout-out to Linus.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNl2q6YZXlA

Kind of sad we've gone from phones with both 3.5mm and bluetooth to now being swindled in to thinking that it's now a zero-sum game where somehow we have to make a choice between 3.5mm and bluetooth.
 
I've yet to hear a convincing argument for the removal other than 'style'. Samsung's devices seem to have the highest IP-rating, a near edge-to-edge screen despite having the jack present in their devices.
 
Sony just feels like a trend-follower which is lame given I enjoyed their previous Xperia Z line in years past.