On April 16th 2025 The US Federal Government Has Proposed To Change The Interpretation Of The Endangered

samus says "don't forget to stretch!"

Ocean, but between Japan and Eastern China, so maybe I get found by a fishing boat, but probably drown too fast to be saved.

go to this random coordinates generator and say in the tags how you would fare if you were dropped where it generates without warning. i’ll go first i’d be dropped in the middle of the fucking south atlantic ocean and perish

My lock screen is a creepier ai version of my profile pic. I'm probably fine, but very confused.

You are trapped in an elevator with the person on your lockscreen. Who is it?

Reblog with who you get stuck with~

Three weeks later, I'm lounging on the beach of an incredibly far away island, reading about how the kingdom collapsed basically instantaneously because the "new guy" they hired couldn't sanctify the literal hellgates across the entirety of the kingdom. The ones they originally hired my sect to pacify and draw magic from.

At least the new kingdom isn't trying to load all of that onto a single clergy member. Better benefits too.

You were unlike the saints and saintesses of other nations. You granted no miracles, and didn't heal any illnesses. They didn’t know when they banished you in favor of a new saint that you had been pouring every fiber of your being into a blessing of protection for the nation your entire life.

I told a year seven friend I listen to Hatsume Miku and they asked why I would want to listen to an AI.

They aren't my friend anymore

So Google, not just Chrome, but Google itself, hates ad blockers.

I get it, ads make money for way less effort and customer involvement than subscriptions and paywalls.

The problem is, as cybersecurity professionals have said, ads are a security risk for every system they interact with. Even if you don't click any ads ever, they're still a security risk.

How are they a security risk? Because ads are allowed to run code to perform their tasks. This code is supplied by the ad provider, and if all it ever did was provide a link, a hovertext/description for the visually impaired, and maybe a non-gif animation, this would be a non-issue on all but the weakest internet connections.

They are not all like that, though.

Endless cases of ad providers, site providers, even your actual ISP (Internet Service Provider) have been proven to inject arbitrary code, capable of doing a great number of things, into ads, links, images, video, etc.

This code has had scripts to use your computer's processing power to help mine Bitcoin so long as it's on the page the code started on, it's been used to install malware (even by your ISP in one particularly bad case), it's been used to just install viruses or keyloggers or so many more things.

Hell, even the not-malicious code can just bog down your computer by being terribly written messes of badly functioning code, so something that should run with barely any impact instead takes up ridiculous amounts of processing power and capacity.

This is a problem, and it's largely solvable by simply blocking ads. There's no native way to prevent ads from running scripts or code without disabling all JavaScript on every page, which effectively kills most pages you go to since every drop-down menu, every page-altering section (like the Google images thing), most search bars, video playback, and so much more, all depend entirely on JavaScript.

Google wants to take away that necessary security of blocking problematic ads, rather than just make a way to disable the problematic aspects of ads.

I dislike ads, especially when they take up more than about 25% of the screen. I'd ideally like to see little to no ads ever, but I understand how ads support the sites they're on, support creators on streaming services, etc.

I'd be okay with classic banner ads, basic image/link ads, even the before/during/after video ads, if they weren't almost guaranteed to be literally hostile. If Google hates ad blockers so much, they should make them less of a safety requirement by letting us choose to disable ad scripts, or even just block that entire concept, because no ads for any worthwhile service or product have ever needed to run scripts. If an image or GIF of your product/service, maybe with a quick description, isn't selling your product/service, then making it hover over the page content, make noise, and mine Bitcoin will only piss your target audience off, while proudly claiming that you are the one doing it.

Would you buy a product that tricks you into interacting with it through just being annoying and pulling the sibling trick of "I'm not touching you, see? I'm touching your computer, not you?"

Hell, pop-up ads were basically scriptless and still managed to piss off most of the people who encountered them. The guy who invented them made a public apology for having developed that 'extremely intrusive' marketing method. Now ISPs have been caught injecting malware into links that you click on while using their service, with the express intent of installing them to your computer to monitor what you do and block access to sites they don't want you on.

You want the Internet to be safe? Don't fight porn or violence, that has never done anything but drive up interest. Fight the people actively making the Internet literally unsafe to use regardless of age or system.

I'll accept ads if ad providers stop making automatic malware.

Sorry for the rant, I'm tired and annoyed.

Samus painting commission for twt user

Asked to draw her with the metroid dread last suit...it was a very fun suit to draw

My baby :)

"The trannies should be able to piss in whatever toilet they want and change their bodies however they want. Why is it my business if some chick has a dick or a guy has a pie? I'm not a trannie or a fag so I don't care, just give 'em the medicine they need."

"This is an LGBT safe space. Of COURSE I fully support individuals who identify as transgender and their right to self-determination! I just think that transitioning is a very serious choice and should be heavily regulated. And there could be a lot of harm in exposing cis children to such topics, so we should be really careful about when it is appropriate to mention trans issues or have too much trans visibility."

One of the above statements is Problematic and the other is slightly annoying. If we disagree on which is which then working together for a better future is going to get really fucking difficult.