How it's been going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QbBc3Oduc8

I see, thanks!

Thanks Dessalines!

Fascinating, didn't know moderators could investigate such things effectively (I was unaware of any mod tool that made that easy to do).

Its early so I only had time to take a cursory glance and the vote counts were still looking the same to me - which one had the votes removed after your report?

Good to hear nonetheless, definitely felt something was up, thanks!

To make it clear what I am talking about - I would expect any voting distribution for 16 votes to be at least semi-random on a controversial comment, in example such as this:

However, the distribution as it occurred looked like this on the first 16 votes:

A controversial comment will have such a ratio, but any comment controversial or not will almost never have this kind of distribution unless there are multiple accounts waiting for vote up events to occur so that they can send a vote down.

I can believe this happening 2, 3, even 4 times by chance, but not 8 times.

I'm entirely aware, I'm specifically referencing my top level comment which at the time had no replies.

Additionally, what you are describing does not explain both a vote up and vote down, occurring at the same time 8 times consecutively, so I'm not quite sure I understand what your point is as what actions occurred prior to hitting the button doesn't enter into what I'm describing as far as I can determine.

Even if people read a thread before scrolling back up and hitting the up or down button, them hitting that button at the same time as someone else hitting the opposing button 8 times in a row within a few moments of each other is still a statistical anomaly.

See my other comment in which I graphed what I am talking about in order to better explain myself.

As I said, certainly possible, I was just surprised by the distribution over time, not the distribution of vote type.

Yes, it's true that some good things have been added, I suppose my concern is just that I feel the negative things in the case of firefox hold greater weights when compared to the positive things they have done.

As a euphemism; a cruise ship adding a bowling alley, better seating, and fine art to its interior is neat and might make it look better and more convenient but it doesn't mean much to me if they also added an engine which spews 50% more pollution into the atmosphere and poisons me.

Certainly possible but I'm sure the odds are astronomically low. After I saw this happen 3 times I started refreshing every minute and each time there was a change, both counts had increased, and this happened 8 times in a row. I could see a distribution happening of something like a vote up at minute 2, vote down at minute 3 vote up at minute 12, vote down at minute 20, etc, but this was - vote up and vote down at minute 5, same thing at minute 11, same thing at minute 16, etc, 8 times concurrently (the minutes listed here are an example, I wasn't tracking exact time between events).

All I intend to say is that if I left when Mozilla thought it was a good idea to have an advertising company become involved in the development of their products and started tracking users without their consent (even if less invasively than cookies) with PPA, then surely I am not the only one who left.

This is a company that has previously sideloaded an extension into the browser without user permissions because of a marketing deal they made with a television show. As a result, I'm afraid im less concerned with the not-yet implemented features they may be working on or the features they have in place when there are a litany of other browsers available which don't fuck around with user permissions and privacy for advertising deals.

If I wanted a browser for tab grouping and UI stuff, I'd move to vivaldi, but at the moment firefox just doesn't seem to have the best UI or the best security and both of those are directly related to Mozilla's choices.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and it is valid, but I think that my criticisms are also valid and are not baseless.

Perhaps if they made decisions like this more often in recent times there would be more people there when they do good stuff.

Edit: Cool to see someone botting this thread as well. I have now watched on three separate occasions someone vote up on mine and others comments only for a vote down to be applied within 10 seconds - 5 minutes in lockstep each time. This was in the first 15 minutes of the comment being posted.

2nd Edit. I've watched it happen 8 times now actually. I wonder what the odds are that over the course of ~2 hours there is exactly 8 people who agree and exactly 8 who don't who keep showing up within moments of one another.

I went one year and six months. It was bad. I'm wishing you the best.

That's nice but,

1. Ubisoft games are ass
2. Day 1 on Steam doesn't matter if I have to install a Ubisoft client and like 4 DRM software's to play the game anyway
3. It would take a lot more for a long time for Ubisoft to repair the damage it's done to it's reputation over the last decade or more

When faced with a firearm or a knife, any self respecting martial artist will tell you the one technique that will save your life.

Running the fuck away and or taking cover.

When it comes to hand to hand combat, understanding the dynamics of how to protect yourself and control the opposer like in Jiu Jitsu is very useful and can also potentially save your life.

But no, if they have a weapon of any kind, get the fuck out of there.

This is the truth. Client and user support is often horrific, but if you can land something working with just the technology it can be pretty nice.

I'm not talking about nuclear war. I'm talking about the climate after a nuclear war - what the article and the headline is about. The implication of my comment is that there would be no people to worry about the climate because they'd all be dead on account of global thermonuclear war.

Yea, I don't think we'd have to worry about it much though.

Yea Costco has great stuff, the kirkland liquor prices and quality are hard to beat too.

A user on Lemmy a while back (can't recall their name) had said that when they get fast food fries, they don't salt the fries, they salt the ketchup.

I will confirm that this is a fantastic idea because it makes every fry taste equally salted, and gives the salt a way to actually adhere to the fries instead of just ending up in the bottom of the container or on your table.

My own recommendation where I can't believe more people don't do it is buying no name/store brand stuff when getting groceries and supplies. I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't do this because marketing has pushed them into thinking these are "inferior" or are not as good, but 7 times out of 10 the no name/store brand stuff is equal in quality or better while also being something like 20-40 percent cheaper. Just because something is different than the name brand stuff does not make it worse, just different. Like you DONT need a more expensive type of aluminum foil for example, the cheapest aluminum foil is identical in quality.

This