The list.

32

Our equivalent is nuclear radiations.

Not what I meant: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/3.3-Overrides-[To-RFP-or-Not]#-fingerprinting

"If you do nothing on desktop, you are already uniquely identifiable - screen, window and font metrics alone are probably enough - add timezone name, preferred languages, and several dozen other metrics and it is game over. Here is a link to the results of a study done in 2016 showing a 99.24% unique hit rate (and that is excluding IP addresses).

Changing a few prefs from default is not going to make you “more unique” - there is no such thing."

Basically making yourself less unique is impossible so there’s no sensible tradeoff to be made (other than in the context of Tor and Mullvad Browser).

You see, as a nuclear physicist…

I see no problematic implication in this and I’m sure whoever pitched this shared a similar mindset with myself.

Am I wrong to assume trying to blend in is a worse and contradictory strategy than trying to actively protect yourself from tracking?

If you want to not be unique, use default setting chrome without adblock. Your browser will look just like anybody else’s, but they will literally know who you are.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you lock everything down and spike as a very special browser and… that’s all they know.

This is all irrelevant to my point, at the same time it kinda makes my point about the limit of your positions so…

My job here is done.

Have a day!

Any attempt to discuss earlier than that is wild conjecture so the only responsible way to deal with it is to accept that it is currently unknowable.

Holy fuckity fuck.

Stop using those words. Stop saying “ANY ATTEMPT” or “THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE”. Stop laying out matter of factly that when you ask scientists they answer in a certain way.

Are you a scientist? Did you ask a theoretical astrophysicist? Are you quoting a paper on the subject?

This is your respectable clearly limited opinion. Portay it as such.

I never said consensus settles a matter, I’m just saying that pulling stuff out your ass and pretending they come from a position of consensus is harmful.

Also you clearly read “The Theory of Everything” or something to that extent by Hawkings and he quite literally mention that he’s going to study what happens before the Big Bang…

Look up Phenomenology.

There’s a fourth option: every reference to the mystical properties of black holes on lemmy creates new universes through some as yet undiscovered process. Then your existence just becomes a statistical eventuality, as do every other life that you could ever live.

It’s like arguing absolute zero doesn’t have consensus as if I was part of the specialists that push forward our collective knowledge on the matter while at best knowing 0 is a small number.

The salient point is that Something HAS to exist because the opposite is literal meaninglessness and that has scientific consensus.

That’s literally opposite to the scientific consensus. People are in fact looking for models that justify why there is something rather than nothing, and it’s not because “the opposite is literal meaninglessness”.

Please, please, please think of all the people that infer knowledge from an autoritatve language heard online.

That’s what you did. We can’t know is very different from “there was no this and this and this prior”.

You got us!

starts to dissolve

Prior to the Big Bang there was no Entropy, no Time, no Matter or Energy

Is there a consensus on this or you are just simplifying for the sake of simplifying?

2024 is not finished for anybody on earth, pal.

50 people clicked the up arrow below the comment.