In my setup only three of them are altered from the default values.

privacy.resistFingerprinting privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing

“privacy.resistFingerprinting” is the one i was talking about specifically, which works for me in the scenarios detailed in my response.

It’s been a while since i setup this install but i know i used the arkenfox scripts as a baseline.

I have no idea how much deviation i have for the default baseline so YMMV greatly.

I only mentioned that setting because it’s one i use to fix my specific problems and it might help as a starting point.

There is a privacy setting in firefox that causes this for me on most websites that require photo upload, not all sites, but consistently the same sites.

Ebay for instance, most reverse image searches etc.

in about:config - > privacy.resistFingerprinting

It might not be that setting specifically, but turning that setting to “false” does fix this for me.

There might be a more granular setting that does the same job but i don’t know of it.

Not that i’m recommending turning that off, that’s your call.

I’ve also not tried it on this site specifically.

Oh i see where my confusion is coming from, you’re the personification of a county.

That is entirely my bad for thinking you were talking about either voting population or actual population, neither of which has a vast majority of anything.

You were just talking about how you and your swing state county personification buddies won out by a narrow margin.

What were there, like 10 of you, 12? i suppose 7 or 8 out of ~12 could be considered a vast change.

You have defeated me sir (or whatever the pronoun for a county is) , with unassailable logic, facts and a true understanding of statistics and the word “vast”.

I concede.

Just realised that if you are struggling with “vast” you might not understand what a personification of something is, if so , disregard all of the above it isn’t going to make any sense.

Dammit forgot the rating.

Repeating of a factually incorrect statement, self-proclaimed victory over a position not claimed or proven.

1/10 - lacks originality, no personal attacks, no strawmen, no fallacies at all as far as i can tell, not even a single slur.

A single easily provable mis-truth and then a self proclaimed victory over an imaginary battle, what is this amateur hour?

If a gambit doesn’t land, you switch tactics or double down, come on now, it’s like you aren’t even trying.

Moving goalposts again? you’ve already used that twice, le sigh

“vast majority” and “majority” aren’t the same, i specifically called out the vast part…but you do you.

yes, finally an lgbt dig i was losing hope at this point but i get it now, you were keeping it in reserve, i can’t wait to see what you do with the immigrants, perhaps even we can hope for some drag queen action?..wait no, don’t tell me, i want it to be a surprise.

a bit weak after that though

provable unlikelihood presented as fact x2 , then lie that is easily provable and contradicts your own stance ( and still fundamentally misunderstands the difference between regular and voting population )

You did get the slogan in though so some extra points for that, weird capitalisation, but close enough.

hmm, a tough call this one…i’ll give it a 6/10, a couple new bingo entries but repetition and self contradiction are fairly weak.

Easily provable lie, hope stated as fact, victory claimed on position never stated.

Come on guy it’s like you aren’t even trying anymore.

Still no immigrants, not even an LGBT ? Really?

lacklustre 2/10 shitpost, must try harder.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-set-office-razor-thin-house-gop-majority/story?id=116274023

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-size-of-donald-trumps-2024-election-victory-explained-in-5-charts

https://www.wusf.org/2024-12-03/trump-falls-just-below-50-in-popular-vote-but-gets-more-than-in-past-elections

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/donald-trump-historic-landslide-win-lie

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/03/nx-s1-5213810/2024-presidential-election-popular-vote-trump-kamala-harris

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/22/how-big-was-donald-trumps-victory-8-charts-provide/

in fairness that last one did use the phrase “vast majority” to describe the number of counties that shifted to red, not the actual number of votes

I know i highlighted the difference between the two statements but i’m not expecting you to understand how statistics works or acknowledge the difference so don’t strain yourself.

Moving goalpoats, unrelated, more goalpost moving, claiming victory without any actual rebuttal, semi-truth, hope stated as fact, implication of stance not actually taken.

Hmm, a bit derivative but overall a solid entry, not as good as the last, still no immigrant references, i’ll give this a 7/10 shitpost.

Hey, if you want to reinterpret what “vast majority” in the context of a political win means, you do you.

Small bit of relative truth mixed with hypocrisy, dog-whistle, complaint, misunderstanding of word, misunderstanding of concept of voting population.

You hit all the highlights, personally i’d have gone with more dogwhistles, maybe something to do with immigrants ?

A solid 8/10 shitpost.

Vast means large btw, as in big.

“Essential” implies more than just a small part, but if you want to claim otherwise you are free to do so.

Do you also say “no, ALL lives matter?”

Because project management is comparable to civil rights? That’s some weak sauce whattaboutism.

Downvotes with no actual reasoning behind them?

I am shocked, shocked i tell you.

Shaw explained that the act of asset reuse is essential in stopping crunch

Utter bullshit, you stop crunch with realistic timeframes and competent planning/project management.

Asset reuse could be part of that sure, but making out like it’s essential is a geometric fractal of red flags holding other, smaller, red flags.

I disagree, the consequences of how people see and interact with you based on that one vote isn’t separate from any other consequences the vote has.

TL;DR;

Hyperbole and “black and white” thinking aren’t a good foundation for claiming moral superiority.

I’m familiar. I don’t know how anyone on Lemmy would not be familiar with it by this point as it’s one of the main go to justifications people use for treating others like shit.

That’s…certainly…one of the takes of all time.

I’m personally astounded you chose that particular quote, but i’ll highlight an important part for you as well.

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

I personally wouldn’t attribute “open to rational argument” and “kept in check by public opinion” as hallmarks of a majority of trump voters, but that’s just me.

Daryl Davis, a black musician who managed to turn multiple KKK members by simply engaging with them as human beings.

A good example of a single person making a difference.

I’m genuinely not sure how you think this can be applied at scale, are you expecting all the people who didn’t vote for trump to dedicate their lives to reforming the people actively trying to do horrible things to them.

My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump,

Roughly half of the people who voted, but ok.

it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.

A few things:

“Just decide” implies it was a sudden decision with no lead up, that is incorrect.

Where are you getting the idea that people are expecting trump voters to magically change for the better?

It sounds like you would like them to, which is nice, but that’s a broad generalisation for no citation.

My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump, it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.

That’s an extreme amount of projection.

Broadly claiming that everyone is the maximum amount of intolerant to anyone even slightly of the grouping you’ve specified is disingenuous at best, further claiming they are all doing this to magically change the minds of said group is equally ridiculous.

and further down :

self righteously justify not making any fucking attempt to reach these people and turn them.

If you genuinely think no attempts have been made up to now, I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I’m sure it’s an interesting story.

Self-righteous, like “nobody but me is doing the thing i think is right, in the way that i think is correct” ?

Feels like I’m taking crazy pills.

It feels that way because you’ve set up a catch-all scenario which encompasses your specific perspective and doesn’t allow for perspectives that don’t align.

If you remove the ability to handle nuance from your perspective then any nuance that arises will seem crazy.

Example of nuance.

“A non-trivial portion of this group of people have voted a specific way, with the understanding that doing so will materially endanger people i love, I have a limited amount of energy and I’m choosing not to spend it sorting through who are the ‘saveable’ bigots and instead direct that energy toward protecting my loved ones (and myself) from the consequences of their actions.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It could be argued that the some of the processes used to decaffeinate the beans can substantially change the flavour profile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmowEQeEMaY

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Julie d’Aubigny

Another indication you haven’t actually read any of the papers, even the titles

3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.

I’m aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.

No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren’t going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.

Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.

However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.

I’m assuming you don’t have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn’t actually change the content of the response.

Feel free to surprise me though.

TL;DR;

Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don’t seem to have actually read isn’t a good basis for an argument

Scientific evidence, sure, but if you’d actually read them you’d see they aren’t as inline with your argument as you seem to think.

Do you mean the one behind a paywall

Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results

Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:

“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”

How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.

You should actually read the “Study Limitations” section for this one.

Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it’s way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is “rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine”

I’m aware i’m cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren’t the silver bullet you seem to think.

Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it’s a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.