I didn’t say it was exactly the same as FF, I said it immediately improved my experience of the Internet

Auto logouts are IMHO better for society. Putting friction between users and addictive algorithms is a simple way to encourage healthier and more mindful habits. It also encourages better security education

If people have questions like this it’s a good thing. It will make them aware of how much privacy they are giving up so they have to make intentional choices about how they design their digital life

Capitalists have really ruined the culture of UX by making it all about what’s good for keeping people hooked & helpless rather than what’s in our collective best interests

Please tell me more about myself, since you know me so well! Not all of us bootlick for meta

Meta directly opposes the collective interests and human rights of all working class people, so I think the better question is how come you don’t care.

There are many good reasons to not use WhatsApp. You’ve already correctly identified 47 of them.

Well I was a Firefox user since 2005 and I’m really glad people responded with top answers to my questions like the one above. We all deserve better than the status quo.

I’ve been using LibreWolf for weeks and it hasn’t broken a single thing yet… not sure what you’re on about

I’ve yet to find anything that it broke after weeks of use… and anyway it takes two seconds to disable that for a few mins in the rare event it’s necessary.

Overall an unambiguously better internet experience on LibreWolf coming from years of FireFox for me.

I’m sorry but that’s absurd.

Switching to LibreWolf after YEAAAARS of Firefox took me less than five minutes. I’ve encountered exactly zero downsides and my experience of the internet immediately improved.

Nobody changes operating systems of any sort with such little friction.

SMS works fine in any country.

And you can isolate your business requirements from your personal life.

SMS works fine.

There are exactly 0 good reasons to use whatsapp anyways…

Conversations like this is why Lemmy feels so much more refreshing than Reddit, so thank you for that… I hadn’t realized how desperately I’ve missed the old internet

Sure I can agree with that.

However, I think that is sort of a special case that’s easy to resolve. It only comes up when they are already in the business of learning logical proofs & will likely be looking to learn from someone or a textbook who will most likely clear that up for them…

Chances are that person already has a baseline level of competency in logical thinking, or, if they don’t, they soon will learn and are open to it. They’ve at least additionally already mastered the colloquial meaning of the phrase and are simply a bit overzealous with it’s use (which should be reigned in as you aptly point out).

On the other hand, when people don’t understand “you can’t prove a negative” in social situations unrelated to formal logic, it’s generally observed they are up to their eyeballs in conspiracy thinking and are so lost in magical thinking that they’ve abandoned even informal rule of thumb levels of logic.

Those are truly sad situations with deep (inter)personal, social, and political consequences, especially if they go on to harm others based on their misunderstandings.

Ironically it seems we both have less faith in the competence of others, albeit in different ways lol

When people colloquially say “you cannot prove a negative” they are usually referring to the fact that absence of evidence can not be used to deduce non-existence of some phenomena (“a negative”), whereas the factual discovery of a phenomena can be used to deduce that the phenomena exists (“a positive”).

They are therefore not referring to formal negation but rather making a point about deductive vs. inductive reasoning and the asymmetry of these two related questions (existence vs. nonexistence).

There is a bit of nuance to add here in that practically speaking you can’t really “discover a fact” by direct observation. But again this is a colloquialism as most laypeople will accept what is directly observable under their noses as factual rather than a noisy data point of one.