It was the missing executable permission π I'm guessing that's what you were expecting π
UnH1ng3d
Thank you π I didn't notice that the mark had gone until now, but if I remove the executable permission, the mark reappears!
It's a handy feature too π
Thanks for pointing it out π
ππ Finally an advantage to using rEFInd ππ
Thanks. I'm still learning how Lemmy works π
Why is that?
Can you give some examples π
I've read the "learn more" bit now and I'm going to leave it switched on. (although I use uBlock anyway βπ )
I think this is a legitimate attempt to 'fix' the internet. It seems only very basic information on interactions with ads is recorded by the browser, and then it is anonymised. As an example, the advertiser should only receive counts of how many people bought a product after seeing a particular ad. I don't think they can see what webpage anyone in particular came from, but maybe they can see that: 11% percentage of visitors came from example.com/some-page
Presumably the anonymised data is only provided once the pool is fairly large and wouldn't show 100% of visitors came from cornhub when you only had one visitor π€·ββοΈ Obviously websites will always see an IP address.
The idea is for this to substitute for traditional, more invasive, tracking. I think it may one day achieve that.
A warning though: I only just started reading about this.
Excuse me while I go and click that 'learn more' button...
I've had the same thing. I think orca's retraction test is just too 'easy'. I think the towers are too far apart.
Are you able to see what kernel version it's running?