I’ve never seen the !0 and !1, it is dumb and indicates either young or terrible devs.

Boolean(window.chrome) is the best, !!window.chrome is good, no need to test if it’s equal to true if you make it a boolean beforehand.

It’s way more accurate that google map. But it lacks a lot of stores and opening times in less touristy countries.

If you want to contribute check out StreetComplete for an easy way.

Is this left-wing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Institute_for_Racial_Biology

Brave does farbling: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/11770

JShelter is a nice extension that tries to implement the same things in other browsers, it’s a bit limited by the fact that it’s an extension.

https://jshelter.org/farbling/

I’ve yet to see a serious review of Duckduckgo browser, the only thing I saw was that because of it’s agreement with Microsoft for their search engine the browser, for a time, had rules to avoid blocking Microsoft tracking.

Sadly Firefox has no tab sandboxing on mobile so yeah, it is less secure.

And while I agree the Brave company is shady, the browser has good security features.

Fuzzy finding really shine for this use case, no need for a mouse.

I don’t know, if your goal is security Pixels have the best hardware and GrapheneOS the best software. It makes a lot of sense.

The quote is not about installing security patches but implementing them. Terrible paper.

I don’t think this is of interest, this is an article in a student journal, written by one person which seems to be a student too. The quote is weak and cherry-picked.

A quote from the same paper:

Security measures in Linux are slim to none as it is a free OS to download.

Yeah, I expected this.

You accuse me of shifting the conversation and you end up being the one doing it. I never said the conversation was irrelevant, I said that whether or not the end goal was to stop or not was irrelevant in deciding about switching to a less toxic mode of consumption.

You complain that it’s mostly bro-saying, marketing and low quality source but when the conversation becomes serious you drop it and never bring any research to your argument.

And you don’t even know the definition of words central to the subject, like vaporisation or aerosol, and yet you act like you know, saying so many approximate to downright false things. It’s OK not to know a subject, no one can know everything, but don’t act like you, misleading people along the way.

I’m OK continuing this conversation if you bring some substance to it. Other please edit your initial message to avoid misleading people.

This is what’s called “risk reduction”, less harmful is better.

I meant regulated as having standards, of course.

Of course it says further research is needed, most papers say that. Again I’ve yet to see a paper that puts vape as more harmful that smoke.

I’ve never seen vape marketing using the word steam, vapor is the scientifically correct word, it’s not an aerosol. An aerosol is a solid or liquid element in suspension inside a gas, this is not the case, the elements you are inhaling are gaseous, it’s a vapor.

And how would you know the amount of water in the myst you see? How can you visually differentiate between the elements? The vapor is composed of all the elements with lower boiling point (I made a mistake using the word melting point in my previous message) than what you set on the vaporiser. Smoke has water in it too.

It’s really simple, burn the thing and you get a very night temperature, almost everything gets vaporised, a lot of elements react to create more harmful ones and you get a lot of smoke (with a little bit of water in it too). Now use a vaporiser, heat it a lot less, to a lower temperature and less elements get vaporised, there are way less reactions (no CO) and you get way less visible gas.

I’m not trying to shift the conversation, vaping is better as a replacement. Whether it’s to quit altogether or not afterwards is irrelevant.

I don’t get why you say it’s not regulated because it is, at least in my country and in a lot of others.

There are a lot of research, the sources for the video you posted has some, here is another well known one.

I also don’t understand why you speak about water related to vapor. Vapor, or gas, is a state of matter, if you heat something, anything, it’ll vaporise (or boil as we say for water) into a gas. Different elements have different melting points, that’s why cannabis vaporisers have an adjustable temperature. Set it low and only the THC will vaporise, higher and you’ll get the CBD too. That’s why combustion is so bad, because the temperature is so high that almost everything vaporise, there is no point in having a temperature this high, it’ll vaporise so many toxic elements. We can discuss nicotine vaporisation because there can issues with elements coming from the flavouring, but for cannabis it’s very straightforward, using a lower temperature than what you get with combustion gets you all the interesting substances (maybe not some terpenes that gives some flavours) without a lot of the toxic ones. Also the herbs are never going to be 100% dry so they’ll have some water, creating a little bit of steam, but that’s only one of the many vaporised elements.

Who’s “you people”?

And well yes, new health hazards will be discovered about vaping, there is no doubt about it. Just as new health hazards are still discovered about smoking. But as of our scientific knowledge right now it’s better, and it’s unlikely to shift because the main source of toxins has been eliminated: combustion. I’ve yet to see a source that says otherwise and you have no other way than to use the current knowledge to make a choice.

I don’t really see your point, why should people keep doing what we know to be worse?

And what do you call mid, long-term? Because vaping has been around long enough to have people that have been doing it for almost 20 years.

Well the argument is the video you linked, I don’t have time to rewatch it but you can look in the sources:

https://sites.google.com/view/sources-vaping/

Myth 1: Vaping is just as harmful as smoking

Fact: Nicotine vaping is not risk-free, but it is substantially less harmful than smoking.

I suggest you watch the material you link in the future and I’ll point out that no one is arguing that vaping is safe, only less bad.

It is, smoking is worse for your health.

That’s what’s so great about vapes, you can precisely chose the nicotine content. You might go up a bit in nicotine when you switch from smoking to vaping to ease the transition. But after that you can easily tweak the nicotine content to lower it bit by bit until you reach 0.

Because different ways to consume have different health hazards.

I stand by it having uncertain long term consequences when other forms of NRT are proven safe.

Still better than smoking.

There is no best way. What matters is what works and different methods work differently on different people. It’s good to have a multitude of ways.

As for efficiency it seems that vaping is very efficient.