I thought Ubisoft offered the scans but they weren’t actually used?

Someone made a mod to replace the intro audio with that and it brings me so much joy lmao

@edmundmcmillen You litte F**ker You made a shit of piece with your trash Issac it’s f**King Bad this trash game I will become back my money I hope you will in your next time a cow on a trash farm you sucker

I love the concept, but the ugly reality is that anyone can spin up an instance and pour in an arbitrary number of votes to themselves or anyone else. I think the credibility score would give people a false confidence and honestly do more harm than good unfortunately

I just don’t have any faith in the kind of good state laws could do if the state is already at rock bottom. Seems like it’d require federal intervention (that would be against the interests of all the rich states) imo, tho I can’t pretend to know where Americans like to draw the line for when federal aid is okay lol.

Let’s say everybody in a state is equally culpable for electing shit leaders for the sake of the hypothetical: this would be fine at first, but what happens if Florida gets their shit together in 30 years and makes a unified push for a good leader and real quality of life improvements for the people? (please suspend your disbelief lmao). All their votes together would mean nothing because of the shit QoL 30 years of republicans would get them, and they’d be powerless to enact any positive change unless the states doing the best under the new system decided to allow it. That’s what I mean by self fulfilling prophecy; poor states can only get poorer and rich ones get richer.

I feel like that would become a self fulfilling prophecy very quickly, and result in America constantly punching down on the poorest states (instead of just the poorest people, like they do now)

I’m a little bit biased here but it might be a good idea to use an instance like lemmy.zip instead, to minimize the amount of defederation going on.

THANK YOU SO MUCH

A part of me CANNOT stop seeing the top left eagle as a duck looking to the right of the image, please tell me someone else sees this too

If I could give your edit an upvote separately from the main post, I would - congrats on the emotional maturity! /gen

Shame they changed it, I think it was kinda cute Microsoft named it after their execs

if when

Minor correction: the website has my VPN’s IP 😂 I don’t trust random websites with shit, personally. The payments not being tied to your real identity would also not make the web any more or less private than it currently is - just the alternative would remove privacy. Again tho, I’m not tied to crypto specifically and would be perfectly happy with any payment system that maintained user privacy. I just don’t want to see a feature roll out that gets people jailed for visiting lgtbq+ sites or some shit when their payment providers are controlled by fascist governments

Your other points are absolutely valid, but privacy-wise I’d much rather have my data associated with an anonymous wallet ID than any payment linked to my real identity

Pedantic warning: it’s not a conventional function, cuz it’d be multivalued for any given input no matter where you put the axes lol

Would you want your full identity being associated with every page you donate to, especially if the donations happen based on you just visiting? Idc if it’s crypto or another alternative personally, but it absolutely has to be properly anonymous or at least have the ability to be. Especially at the time BAT launched, crypto was the only way I personally knew to achieve that - if Mozilla wants to get on board and switch away from crypto to something equally anonymous, I’d be thrilled, but imo this is a good use case for crypto anyway so it doesn’t bother me.

Exactly how I feel, which is why I’d be psyched if Mozilla joined in so that system could be extended to the browser I use lol

I’d also love if they could do it this way, but I just don’t think it’s realistic tbh. In brave’s system it’s just up to the specific content creator to accept rewards - someone on YouTube could opt in without requiring google themselves to stop showing ads on the site in general (not gonna happen imo). Also, it’s not a reality I’m happy with, but Firefox and brave together are negligible for websites compared to chrome (65% of users use chrome 😭) so expecting websites to globally remove ads for non-chrome specific features is unlikely. Web devs could show ads based on user agent, sure, but that’s more work for the devs themselves compared to just blocking the ads and allowing them to say yes or no to be rewarded for their content.
BAT vs taler wise, I personally don’t care - I feel like the system works with either, so if they wanted to stick with BAT or switch it up I’d be happy either way. The part that’s important for me is the ability to reward creators independently from the websites that host them - like rewarding both is great, but in the case a website hasn’t/won’t done the work to disable ads (cough cough YouTube, Facebook/ig, etc)I still think creators should be able to benefit from the system. The last time I used BAT (which was very early after it launched tbh, things may have really changed) you could buy BAT (or watch ads for it, but the experience was truly shit and I immediately turned it off) and donate directly to websites (I gave some to Wikipedia iirc) or creators (I don’t watch YouTube but I heard some had signed up on there) or just let brave watch the time you spent on sites and divide your BAT between them proportionally monthly(?). Literally the only downside was like you said, adoption wasn’t incredible back then - but keep in mind that Firefox has 2.74% of users and brave is a rounding error. Firefox coming on board could dramatically increase engagement if all websites have to do is say “yea sure” to getting money from a small subset of their users, but I just really don’t see the majority of devs bothering to write new logic and fundamentally change their sites for the fraction of the Firefox+brave users who choose to donate (who are already a tiny fraction of their traffic).
Endgame ofc I agree should be to make tracking ads a thing of the past, but tbh I just don’t see the benefit of convincing websites to stop but only for a fraction of their users - like if you stumbled onto a random website and saw they said they’d opted into the program and wouldn’t track you / show ads… would you disable your adblocker? Imo until a system like this gets EXTREMELY wide adoption we have to be using adblocker anyway, so expecting devs to do a lot of work just so we can run the blockers on their page seems less than ideal to me.

Isn’t that exactly what brave did? I wasn’t a fan of their “watch ads to get BAT” system either, but the alternative was always to just buy BAT with actual money. I’d rather see Mozilla work with brave to collaborate and improve on the BAT strategy than to start another competing standard, personally.