Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #14573 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-19 20:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-21 19:01 +0200 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 52 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2025-08-19 20:50 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-19 23:35 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-19 22:14 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 02:25 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-20 04:07 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:39 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-20 21:57 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 14:26 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-20 23:00 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-20 15:45 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-21 20:27 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-22 08:22 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Stan Brown <someone@example.com> - 2025-08-23 08:28 -0700
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-23 16:49 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-23 21:17 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-23 23:37 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 03:38 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 03:05 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 15:49 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 15:05 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 17:56 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 17:58 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 20:31 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 18:44 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 23:53 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-25 03:28 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-25 14:00 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-25 16:51 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-25 09:41 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-25 16:52 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 17:50 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 17:57 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 04:28 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-25 14:03 +0200
YouTube subscribes (was: Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"??) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 16:16 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-25 20:24 +0200
Re: YouTube subscribes "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 21:47 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: YouTube subscribes cracker@montaz.org - 2025-08-25 18:20 -0500
Re: YouTube subscribes "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-26 14:54 +0200
Re: YouTube subscribes Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-26 11:33 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-26 15:09 +0200
Re: YouTube subscribes Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-26 17:02 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-26 19:56 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-25 09:28 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-24 09:17 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 15:15 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 18:04 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 18:19 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 05:10 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-08-20 00:48 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-08-21 19:01 +0200
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 11:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <mh5gr6Fp4i5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14717 |
>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; >>> >>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel. it isn't subscribing itself that does that, it is using the notification bell that does that. I subscribe to many channels, but get notifications from none of them, my phone would never shut-up if I allowed notify from youtube. >> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails. It's a notification in the android app, maybe also push notify from the browser client?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 15:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <6ao0olx6ao.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #14727 |
On 2025-08-26 12:33, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do;
>>>>
>>>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel.
>
> it isn't subscribing itself that does that, it is using the notification
> bell that does that. I subscribe to many channels, but get
> notifications from none of them, my phone would never shut-up if I
> allowed notify from youtube.
You can subscribe without notifications?
I'm looking at a subscribed channel. I see a droplist:
black bell icon All
white bell icon Personalized (check)
crossed out bell None
crossed out person Unsubscribe
I see I have personalized notifications, but I forget how to see what
that means exactly. In the notification bell itself (top right) there is
a cogwheel.
Desktop notifications Get notifications in this browser No
even if not watching youtube
(I assume this means push notifications)
prefs Subscriptions Yes
reccomended videos No
more entries.
I have very few subscribed channels, and some of them have no activity,
so my phone doesn't bother me much with them.
>>> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails.
>
> It's a notification in the android app, maybe also push notify from the
> browser client?
Ah, yes. I have disabled the later.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 17:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <mh6450Fs841U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14731 |
"Carlos E.R." wrote: > I see I have personalized notifications, but I forget how to see what > that means exactly. In the notification bell itself (top right) there is > a cogwheel. <https://www.youtube.com/account_notifications> I have every slider there set to "off" On a per-channel basis, my notification setting is also "personalised" but that is effectively the same as "off" for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 19:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <108l003$6e3d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14731 |
On 2025/8/26 14:9:58, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-08-26 12:33, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; >>>>> >>>>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel. >> >> it isn't subscribing itself that does that, it is using the notification >> bell that does that. I subscribe to many channels, but get >> notifications from none of them, my phone would never shut-up if I >> allowed notify from youtube. I'm only on computer/browser, not 'phone.> > You can subscribe without notifications? > > I'm looking at a subscribed channel. I see a droplist: > > black bell icon All > white bell icon Personalized (check) > crossed out bell None > crossed out person Unsubscribe And the "white bell icon Personalised" is the one it defaults to if you subscribe from the unsubscribed state.> > I see I have personalized notifications, but I forget how to see what > that means exactly. In the notification bell itself (top right) there is > a cogwheel. > > Desktop notifications Get notifications in this browser No > even if not watching youtube > (I assume this means push notifications) I don't know what it would mean for me; presumably popups in the browser. I have that set to off, too. I get the impression that _these_ settings are global, i. e. not channel-specific. > prefs Subscriptions Yes "Notify me about activity from the channels that I'm subscribed to" I have no, which presumably is why I've never got a notification of a new upload. (Though I don't know if it would tell me about other "activity" - I wasn't sure what other activity it might tell me about, which is probably why I set [or left, I can't remember] it to off.) > reccomended videos No "Notify me of videos that I might like based on what I watch" For me, that is on: however, I don't think I've ever had such a _notification_. (And I'm subscribed to a lot of channels, and watch a lot of YouTube, so would expect the algorithm to think I might like lots of videos.)> > more entries. > Activity on my channel (on), Activity on my comments (off), Mentions (on), Others reusing my content (on), promotional content and offerings (on). I have been assuming that these settings follow the common convention of blob to the right (which it colours blue) means on/yes, and blob to the left (which it colours black) means off/no. However, given that the _only_ notifications I can remember getting for some time - and plenty of those - have been when someone likes, or posts a followup to, my comments, I am wondering if these are the other way round? That would certainly explain why I'm only getting activity-on-my-comments notifications, though not why I'm _not_ getting new-upload ones. > > I have very few subscribed channels, and some of them have no activity, > so my phone doesn't bother me much with them. > > >>>> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails. >> >> It's a notification in the android app, maybe also push notify from the >> browser client? > > Ah, yes. I have disabled the later. > I can't remember when I last got an email "from" YouTube. I see towards the bottom of the above Notifications page, there's a drop-down headed Unsubscribed emails, which if I drop it has only one entry, "Someone leaves a comment on my video or responds to my comments on a video", with a Resume option, presumably meaning I have "Unsubscribed" it, which would account for my not getting emails. (Quite why it bothers with a drop-down list for only one entry I don't know; I guess under some circumstances there could be more than just the one entry.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108h6rd$3aava$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14676 |
On 24/08/2025 14:49, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-08-24 04:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2025/8/24 0:37:47, Marion wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 21:17:44 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote : > > >>> But back to what I never see... I never see an ad inserted by YouTube. >>> >>> If anyone else is seeing YouTube-inserted ads, they're not doing it >>> right. >> So what do you think you're doing different? As I say, I wouldn't have >> expected being unique every time to affect whether they're inserted or >> not - onlu which ones _are_ inserted. > > I don't see adds in youtube. I am not logged in, and I allow all > cookies. They have all the history. > > I simply use uBlock Origin. > +1 But I do get a 10 second wait before the video shows. uBlock Origin also removes a lot of commercial (as opposed to private) ads inserted in Facebook Marketplace. -- Regards wasbit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 09:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108ehqo$2m6b7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14655 |
On 23/08/2025 16:28, Stan Brown wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:22:00 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote: >> Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything >> you don't have to, and never pay for anything. > > Like most categorical rules, this is nonsense. It's true that "you > get what you pay for" is not an infallible guide, but there's a > reason why that's a saying everyone knows. > Marketing hype to justify higher prices. -- Regards wasbit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108faba$1iho$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14675 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:17:28 +0100, wasbit wrote : >>> Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything >>> you don't have to, and never pay for anything. >> >> Like most categorical rules, this is nonsense. It's true that "you >> get what you pay for" is not an infallible guide, but there's a >> reason why that's a saying everyone knows. >> > > Marketing hype to justify higher prices. Agree with wasbit that the classic goal of marketing is to make people jump to completely unwarranted (but favorable to their product) assumptions. It's how premium fuel is sold, for example, where people jump to a completely unwarranted assumption that Chevron gas is better simply because it's advertised to have Techron (which is mostly plain old polyetheramines, which all USA top tier fuels have plenty of). For decades I (seemingly innocently) nonchalantly ask people and attendants at the gas pump what's the difference between premium & regular, and I almost always get the unwarranted assumptions that marketing wants you to think simply because it costs 50 cents more per gallon out here in California land. For most cars, it's actually worse gas (although not meaningfully so), and yet people pay half a buck more per gallon based on unwarranted assumptions (don't even get me started on similar marketing hype of the iPhone please). The absurd "you get what you pay for" mantra is pure bullshit IMHO, designed for low-IQ people, since it's always said by people with absolutely zero education on the product itself, and therefore who have no clue about the product as all they know is the price. The dumber a person is, i.e., the less they know about the product, the more desperate they seem to be to gauge the product based on a number line. That number line is often price, but it could be grades such as 'L/XL/GXL' or 'bronze/silver/gold' or worse, warranty number lines (1yr/2yr/3yr), etc. The truth is you never get what you pay for. a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is). b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 18:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108fgn2$2gija$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14679 |
On 2025/8/24 16:15:54, Marion wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:17:28 +0100, wasbit wrote : > > >>>> Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything >>>> you don't have to, and never pay for anything. >>> >>> Like most categorical rules, this is nonsense. It's true that "you >>> get what you pay for" is not an infallible guide, but there's a >>> reason why that's a saying everyone knows. >>> >> >> Marketing hype to justify higher prices. > > Agree with wasbit that the classic goal of marketing is to make people jump > to completely unwarranted (but favorable to their product) assumptions. [] > The absurd "you get what you pay for" mantra is pure bullshit IMHO, > designed for low-IQ people, since it's always said by people with > absolutely zero education on the product itself, and therefore who have no > clue about the product as all they know is the price. That side is often true ... [] > The truth is you never get what you pay for. > a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is). > b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it. ... and b is true, and the latter part of a. But there is in _some_ cases some truth in the old saying. An approximation that works a lot of the time (nothing beats proper research, but if you're in a hurry) is to assume it's rubbish if there is heavy marketing of the more expensive product. But remember, in most cases it costs more to _make_ a better product (whether a cookie/biscuit or a piece of software), so it is reasonable to assume that will be reflected in the price - _unless_ there is marketing that has to be paid for. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment. -Robert Maynard Hutchins, educator (1899-1977)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108fl2l$2tef$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14682 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:04:34 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote : > The truth is you never get what you pay for. >> a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is). >> b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it. > > ... and b is true, and the latter part of a. But there is in _some_ > cases some truth in the old saying. An approximation that works a lot of > the time (nothing beats proper research, but if you're in a hurry) is to > assume it's rubbish if there is heavy marketing of the more expensive > product. But remember, in most cases it costs more to _make_ a better > product (whether a cookie/biscuit or a piece of software), so it is > reasonable to assume that will be reflected in the price - _unless_ > there is marketing that has to be paid for. Yes, but is a diamond-encrusted Rolex really a better watch than a Timex? What matters most is how well it tells time - and the Timex wins that spec. People let marketing tell them what matters, e.g., some people actually buy a RED!!!!!!!!!! iPhone, which, let's face it, isn't better than black ones. Marketing's job is to differentiate the product. Any way they can. Generally, almost all products are commodities. If not commodities, then they're differentiated by specs. But you have to know what "spec" matters. For example, on a battery, the spec is the "juice" that it outputs. Not the warranty. The warranty is a marketing gimmick. Much like biometrics are on mobile devices. I'm on a lot of tech forums, where, for example, people think that whatever marketing people advertise, "must" be true, e.g., a battery with a 2-year warranty must be better (and more expensive) than one with no warranty. A "blue" coolant for European cars must be better than the "pink" for Japanese or the "green" for American cars. If they put a spec of sand in a brake pad versus a spec of copper, then it immediately becomes a fancy ceramic pad versus a metallic pad (both versus non-asbestos organic), when what really matters is the cold/hot friction rating which is required, by law, to be printed on every package in the USA for brake pads. But even the car parts guys don't understand friction coefficients (even as that's what brake pads do!) so everyone talks about the absurd meaningless perceived (yet imaginary) differences between metallic & ceramic & organic. Everyone is desperate for a number line to make decisions and MARKETING is always glad to hand you a "good/better/best" number line. But what really matters in good/better/best is the specifications. But most people can't handle the fact that things have specs. Which, is why, as I noted, that people think that the number line of premium gas being fifty cents more expensive means that it's better. And yet, it's not. It's worse (for most engines). But not measurably worse. Still, the fifty cents per gallon uptick is a waste of money. Because it's not better at all. Which is my point. The less someone knows about a product, the more they succumb to marketing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 05:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108gnnl$2gija$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14687 |
(See last line before starting your reply.) On 2025/8/24 19:19:1, Marion wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:04:34 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote : > > >> The truth is you never get what you pay for. >>> a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is). >>> b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it. >> >> ... and b is true, and the latter part of a. But there is in _some_ >> cases some truth in the old saying. An approximation that works a lot of >> the time (nothing beats proper research, but if you're in a hurry) is to >> assume it's rubbish if there is heavy marketing of the more expensive >> product. But remember, in most cases it costs more to _make_ a better >> product (whether a cookie/biscuit or a piece of software), so it is >> reasonable to assume that will be reflected in the price - _unless_ >> there is marketing that has to be paid for. > > Yes, but is a diamond-encrusted Rolex really a better watch than a Timex? > What matters most is how well it tells time - and the Timex wins that spec. If telling the time is _all_ you're buying it for, OK. Though I suspect the strictly mechanical parts of a Rolex - regardless of whether it's got any diamonds on it - probably _are_ more precisely made than those in a Timex, but if what I want is time accuracy, I'd almost certainly buy some cheap electronic device, which is likely to be better than both of them. Especially if locked to a broadcast reference. As well as more precisely made, the Rolex may be more durable too, and/or better against say depth (of water) or other things - but that sort of thing is verifiable by your beloved specs.> > People let marketing tell them what matters, e.g., some people actually buy > a RED!!!!!!!!!! iPhone, which, let's face it, isn't better than black ones. Not in functionality, no. But there's more to life than that! Though I agree, actually _paying more_ for a different colour rankles, _if_ they cost the same to make.> > Marketing's job is to differentiate the product. Any way they can. Do you call information, marketing? If you do, then I consider that to have some value. But the vast majority of what most of us think of as marketing, I dislike (and with me - and IANA - excessive marketing is counter-productive: if I become aware that something is being excessively marketed, I will actively avoid that product!). > Generally, almost all products are commodities. > If not commodities, then they're differentiated by specs. > > But you have to know what "spec" matters. > > For example, on a battery, the spec is the "juice" that it outputs. That's not the _only_ one though. > Not the warranty. > > The warranty is a marketing gimmick. Batteries (and cells) can have the same capacity (in joules, or [milli]watt-hours if you prefer), and even the same maximum current capacity (important for car batteries), and yet differ in non-obvious ways: for example, electrodes made in such a way that discourages thread growth, by texture or even just simply by separation: that can affect how long it lasts. There _can_ be some correlation between that and the guarantee. Of course, real results from consumer tests are better, if you can get them. For guarantees on e. g. devices, I tend to ignore stated guarantees, and rely on the UK "sale of goods" act, which says things must be "of merchantable quality". > Much like biometrics are on mobile devices. you may think so (and I don't think I have any that have such - certainly not a fobile moan); security enthusiasts might disagree with you.> > I'm on a lot of tech forums, where, for example, people think that whatever > marketing people advertise, "must" be true, e.g., a battery with a 2-year > warranty must be better (and more expensive) than one with no warranty. It's better if you can find out _why_ it is better. > > A "blue" coolant for European cars must be better than the "pink" for > Japanese or the "green" for American cars. If they put a spec of sand in a Why? (Do they claim it is? Do they cost different amounts?) > brake pad versus a spec of copper, then it immediately becomes a fancy > ceramic pad versus a metallic pad (both versus non-asbestos organic), when > what really matters is the cold/hot friction rating which is required, by > law, to be printed on every package in the USA for brake pads. Again, the obvious spec. isn't the only one. Different materials may have the same braking ability initially, but decrease in effectiveness as they warm up; and assuming they _all_ do, certain materials - and/or designs - may not warm up as fast in use. So don't just look at one spec.!> > But even the car parts guys don't understand friction coefficients (even as > that's what brake pads do!) so everyone talks about the absurd meaningless > perceived (yet imaginary) differences between metallic & ceramic & organic. The store robot (human variety), probably on minimum wage, doesn't necessarily; some may know their onions. And yes, some even though they've been in the job for decades are as clueless as anyone (and will regurgitate marketing hype - and, also, what other people have told them). Identify them if you can, so you can ignore them!> > Everyone is desperate for a number line to make decisions and MARKETING is > always glad to hand you a "good/better/best" number line. Of course; that's part of their job.> > But what really matters in good/better/best is the specifications. > But most people can't handle the fact that things have specs. Certainly, those with the time/expertise look at the spec.s - but you have to look at _all_ the spec.s, and see what compromises suit _you_. For example, if you're into racing (or similar), certain brake pads may actually be worth it for you - but, although they _are_ better in absolute terms, the extra price may not be _worthwhile_ for another user.> > Which, is why, as I noted, that people think that the number line of > premium gas being fifty cents more expensive means that it's better. > > And yet, it's not. > It's worse (for most engines). > > But not measurably worse. > Still, the fifty cents per gallon uptick is a waste of money. > > Because it's not better at all. > Which is my point. > > The less someone knows about a product, the more they succumb to marketing. There's more to life than _just_ value for money though. Some people may _feel better_ because they have diamonds on their watch, or a blue car; always seeking only VFM can sometimes blind some people to that. It'd be a boring world if we were all the same. (I would _prefer_ not to have a silver/grey car, as it'd be easier to find in the car park!) I think we're both mostly arguing for the sake of it, and should stop - it's certainly almost entirely OT for these three 'groups. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 00:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1082v06$j6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14573 |
On 19.08.2025 20:50, Rink wrote: > ... > I have Windows Firewall (on Windows7) > but it looks like it's only about incoming traffic. > Maybe I should try Avira Firewall? > Or zonealarm (an old one for Windows7)? when a programm tries to make a network connection for the first time a Windows Firewall window appears, asking for permission. You can find a list of all those remembered settings in Cotrol Panel->Windows Firewall: (TreeView) Überwachung(?)->Firewall To block access, you must remove the allowed programm from the list, start it again, then choose "Block". ciao..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 19:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1087je9$12pff$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14582 |
On 20.08.2025 00:48, Schugo wrote: > On 19.08.2025 20:50, Rink wrote: >> ... >> I have Windows Firewall (on Windows7) >> but it looks like it's only about incoming traffic. >> Maybe I should try Avira Firewall? >> Or zonealarm (an old one for Windows7)? > > when a programm tries to make a network connection > for the first time a Windows Firewall window appears, > asking for permission. > You can find a list of all those remembered settings in > Cotrol Panel->Windows Firewall: (TreeView) Überwachung(?)->Firewall > > To block access, you must remove the allowed programm from the list, > start it again, then choose "Block". oops... I forgot: In this treeview "Outbound Rules" you can also manually add a rule for any program outbound and inbound to allow and block ;) ciao..
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox
csiph-web