In Chrome you can also allow it to save your tabs so when you restart Chrome they are still there. I've tried Pocket a number of times and I go back to doing this every time.
With Pocket I found myself saving pages and never going back to them.
Perhaps, elaborating on the idea, you could create something like pocket that encourages you to read the things you've saved in a certain timeframe and cleans them if you don't?
I know what you're saying, but think about things like jquery that every site uses. It's reasonable to source it remotely because everyone has it cached. Unless you had some content ID system in the browsers to pull locally sourced scripts up, we'd lose that instant CDN effect.
That said. It's hard to compare the benefits of that to the cost of the nonsense in OP's story. For every 50ms we've gained from cached jquery we've lost 3s to stupid advertising.
My experience (as a uMatrix user -- I get to manually whitelist domains all the time) is that most sites host their own copy of jquery anyway. And the sites that download scripts from external domains are usually the worst offenders -- they download a crapton of things from external domains, definitely not in my cache. As in they probably couldn't care less about performance. Name resolution often takes longer than it would take to serve these request first hand.
The code in the browser is a stub. No data gets collected let alone sent anywhere until the user adds a Pocket account. Pocket updated their privacy policy, and they open-sourced the browser integration code. https://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozilla-responds-to-firef...
But based on the article, it wasn't addressed until users raised a stink about it. And it wasn't just privacy, it was also closed-source, unnecessary features that should be an addon, etc.
Why would it be addressed before anyone complained? And it was planned as part of the Readability feature, which is very popular and not considered "unnecessary". But FF devs were having a hard time making a good read-it-later UI and decided to use Pocket instead of reinventing the wheel.
Edit: To be clear, I think the browser code was always a stub, and the privacy policy was modified before the feature launched as part of Firefox.
My concern is that Mozilla has been on a "Sure, you can provide feedback, but we're gonna do it anyway" streak. Pocket is quite unnecessary, and would be a great candidate for an add-on. I don't know their reasons for bringing it in, but it seems pretty cut and dry that there were a lot of users who didn't want it even after it was cleaned up, and Mozilla ignored them.
I think you're probably just underestimating how popular it is. Tagging activity tripled from 2012 to 2017. They had 10 million monthly active users in February when Firefox bought them.
Before, the major actor that could issue genuine consequences for speech was the state. The word "Consequences" in the statement "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", means a punch to the face or a stern shaming from townsfolk. You got on with it, kept doing your job, continued to live your life.
When the state objected to your speech, it would end your life, it would destroy you.
But fast forward to today. Suddenly loud demographics of people have the ability to destroy you in the long term, destroy your working prospects, smear your reputation, mark you as unhireable, harass you everywhere. State level consequences. It's no longer a punch to the face in a bar for obnoxious speech. It's no longer the "consequences" in "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences". Those consequences are now state level. How meaningless would this statement be if it was "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from the state."
"You're free to talk, no one will stop you, but we the state still get to destroy your life." How meaningless is that?!
You say people shouldn't be vilified as an outcast. But that's what will happen!
Before, he'd have said it among his friends, who would dismiss it and forget his opinions the following morning.
He published his opinion, that Google's efforts that enabled thousands of his female peers to pursue careers there, are misguided and harmful, that some of his female coworkers are biologically unsuited to their jobs. He did it to himself.
He said nothing of the sort you're attributing to him here, yet here you are with the pitchfork. What brought this on him was the internet lynch mob condemning him as "anti-diversity" without taking the time to even look at the pictures he included in his memo, let alone read the damn thing.
I hear what you're saying here, but just taking what the article was saying, that shouldn't be much of an issue.
Then one of the participants drank some contraband Scotch and became
unusually, violently ill. He confessed his transgression to the
researchers, and follow-up studies confirmed his account: WIN 18,446
didn’t mix well with booze.
I suspect this inmate was more than a little liquored up. Just a guess. But more importantly this part:
WIN’s side effects sounded familiar to Amory. In his clinical practice,
he’d occasionally prescribed Antabuse (disulfiram) to patients who
struggled with alcohol addiction. The drug blocks a form of the enzyme
acetaldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), which helps the body metabolize
alcohol;
which means it's effects are used in practice to combat alcoholism.
Can't be that bad. Though, that still means that there could be other interactions not described?
somewhere else.
unfortunately.
that won't be happening.