I am pretty sure that’s not a thing? Like that’s not one of the big ten. I don’t remember Jesus saying anything about commanding it, though he said to accept it if you can. I do remember stuff about rich people, though. That may be relevant considering they’re spending $4mil to go after gay priests…
Yeah celibacy is about inheritance not Jesus in Catholicism. Do they think the guy who convinced multiple men to ditch their wives and kids to wander the desert with a bunch of men was really that into celibacy and men not getting it on?
I'm willing to bet he isn't. Most priests who engage in same sex acts with underage kids (for example) are not gay and have never wanted any kind of adult gay relationship. I only point this out because people think that priests = gay. Most same-sex pedophiles aren't gay and have no desire for normal adult gay relationships at all.
A new monk arrived at the monastery. He was assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He noticed, however, that they were copying copies, not the original books. The new monk went to the head monk to ask him about this. He pointed out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.
The head monk said, ‘We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.’ The head monk went down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.
Hours later, nobody had seen him, so one of the monks went downstairs to look for him. He heard a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and found the old monk leaning over one of the original books, crying.
He asked what was wrong.
‘The word is ‘celebrate,’ not ‘celibate’!’ sobbed the head monk.
Interesting, I’ll look deeper into that. They have an adblocking engine as well though and catch a few random ones uBlock doesn’t, so I’m not totally convinced they are fully redundant.
Find the escapees, put them on the list or find a list including them for your particular use-case.
I dont have much things getting through, mostly small sites displaying things, so i just add a filter myself.
Afaik Ghostery was bought and started tracking its users.. or was that another popular extension? Happened to alot of these.. pretty sure it was Ghostery?
Nope, you should set up site exception. Site exceptions are much better than just leaving cookies persistent. Cookies both function as a method to track and an easy way for a hacker to steal session tokens. Always prefer the native method, reducing attack surface and providing better function with browser APIs. Read the resource wiki linked from Arkenfox user.js
You can delete cookies and data on a per-site basis, and advanced tracking protection prevents any nefarious websites from exploiting your browser. That’s all I care for.
No, I’m talking about Firefox. Fennec, that is, but the key functions are all the same.
It’s not in the settings however, you need to open the site in question and press the lock icon in the address bar next to the URL, the context menu there allows to delete cookies and site specific data.
Ghostery sends like every website you visit to their servers. Its opt-out and Ublock origin is better anyways. Firefox really has a problem of not marking bad addons
Mull works the same as Fennec, except it is hardended with patches from Tor and Arkenfox user.js. No real reason IMO to use fennec over Mull, whose developers also contribute to Fennec. Ghostery also changes your fingerprint, acting as one more data point. Mull has a whole bunch of configured flags to reduce fingerprinting, and many more to help with security (like disabling JIT).
Following the pro-Mull comments here I’ve given it a try for a solid 48h, and just reverted back to Fennec. Mull is simply restricting the user experience too much, and I’m not willing to make the sacrifice.
My biggest annoyances:
Websites don’t get information about dark mode from my device and revert back to light mode by default.
Websites don’t get information about the system time on my phone and deliver content based on GMT+0.
Some websites get wrong (or none?) information about the screen resolution and are unusable.
I’m aware that those details are suppressed to avoid fingerprinting, and while I believe that the intention is good, it makes using my phone more cumbersome, and that’s not something I’m willing to do. So my choices at this point are basically to keep using Mull and deactivate the advanced fingerprinting protection, or use Fennec as before.
Firefox resistant fingerprinting does the first 2 things, the last one is mobile partial letterboxing. All are anti fingerprinting techniques, but i understand how they may be restrictive. Maybe just add dark reader to have dark mode forced on websites, which technically can be fingerprinted but has a large userbase so idk.
Why did someone see that I joined Signal? People who already know your number and already have you in their contacts see that they can contact you on Signal. Nothing is sent to them by your Signal app or the Signal service. They just see a number they know is registered. If someone knows how to send you an insecure SMS, we want them to see that they can send you a Signal message instead.
Why did I see that my contact joined Signal? You are notified when someone that is stored in your contact list is a new Signal user. If you can send an insecure SMS to a contact, we want you to know you can send a Signal message instead.
You can check that in the phone app too. Hit new message, enter the numer, hit "New message to… " and it’ll tell you if it isn’t known. There is rate limiting in that function, you’d need a lot of signal accounts to sweep all phone numbers.
You could also try signing up to signal using the number you want to check.
Neither way however you would get the signal name or profile pic of the number if I understand it correctly, that would get sent if they reply to you.
It’s a necessary feature if you are using phone numbers. Signal has to tell you if your message has any chance of being received.
I don’t want to message someones number, to find out they never got my message and don’t have signal a few days later, and I don’t want to message them via whatsapp too, giving them a chance to use that when they have signal.
My favourites are the ones that let you set a 35-character password and, presumably, happily hash it and store it in the database, but then provide a login screen that requires passwords to be 20 characters or less.
My HP printer had a hard limit of 16 characters. My password manager generated 20 characters. The login form had no issue accepting 20 characters, which were of course wrong.
I was under the impression that even just letters (no case) would take a lifetimes to brute force if you exceeded 15 characters. And that drops to just 11 if you mix cases, numbers and special characters.
One of the worst offenders I’ve seen was a bank I used to use. I think they limited to 16 characters and also got angry about a couple different special characters I tried to use. The problem beyond that? The form would let you submit any length and just silently chopped off characters 17+ or whatever. I had to reset my password several times to figure out what was going on. Pathetic…
Earlier this year I signed up as a member to a professional organization that also grants IT-related certifications… I couldn’t figure out why the account registration wouldn’t let me proceed, until I typed a super short password instead.
I know right! I hate that so much new tech needs an app and will lose functionality/stop working if the company stop supporting it or you phone stop working with the app.
The fact that it costs $1800 means it was dead on arrival for me. But I wish them the best if they can carve out a niche of privacy-focused iRobot/Roomba customers while bringing increased exposure to privacy issues
privacy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.