"You're protected from the methods I use here. You disabled JavaScript, so this fingerprinting trick can't run at all. You're still vulnerable to network-based methods. Read on to see what it does to everyone else.

From now on I’ll call you:…"

I've run sans JS as default almost since its inception in the Netscape days and I've very little difficulty without it. On rare occasions when I'm forced to use JS I'll cut-and-paste the URL into another browser.

I no longer use ad blockers as I just don't see ads with JS disabled. The other privacy precautions I take are the obvious ones such as no Google or social media accounts, flushing cookies at session's end, regularly randomize my IP and never let Chrome anywhere near my machines and make judicious use of multiple browsers (this is being written in Privacy Browser on Android).

Using NewPipe and sponsor block on PipePipe increases privacy and makes YouTube ad free.

Client-side scripting was a mistake which was obvious from the outset (or not severely limiting the reach of scripting engines).

What I find hard to understand is why alternative plugin JS engines haven't been developed that are under user control. Spoofing, randomizing and returning junk data to webservers would go a huge way towards stopping fingerprinting by websites.

I guess you use the web in quite a limited manner? (Or use that other browser quite a lot...?).

I've tried no JS various times over the years and always end up constantly whitelisting sites. It's even worse in 2026 and gets worse each year.

Banking, insurance, webmail, groceries, eBay, CAPTCHAs... not to mention what feels like 50% of the web that is behind either Cloudflare or similar, which almost always require Javascript.

In fact, I'm a very heavy internet user, always have been. Much of my web usage is pretty well automated, I use multiple browsers selected from an 'open with' app. This android, de-googled smartphone currently has four different browsers 'tailored' for specific types of sites and all flush clean after use (cookies etc. are never stored). And toggling airplane mode is the quickest way to change one's IP address.

What's important for me is to separate jobs, functions, etc. that are best processed on the internet from those on other media—SMS, voice telephone, eyeballing people in person (physically going to a store), etc.

This greatly reduces my need for services that use JS. By separating and processing jobs by type I automatically avoid many having to be handled by the web—for those JavaScript can't enter the picture even if one wanted to use it.

For example, I used to do internet banking but I'd never do so again on two accounts—security and that it undermines the use of cash. (A cashless society is the quintessential way to lose one's autonomy, ultimately it's a very dangerous move towards totalitarianism. That most people don't realize this, or if they do then they're prepared to trade it for convenience simply horrify me.)

That Big Tech has enshittified the net out of all recognition in recent years means I've no longer use for social media, Gmail or any Google services—goodbye all Google JS. In short, whilst I do purchase stuff online, I purchase most from shops for cash.

Most of my time on the net is confined to specialist tech sites and they're the ones least likely to use JS in a restrictive way. Yes, I agree Cloudflare, etc. is an increasing problem but the web is so big there are usually alternatives. News is often syndicated, so when NYT and such make life difficult without JS, I just jump to the same story on another site where JS doesn't matter (such blocking nonsense is really a trivial non-issue for me). I've dozens more examples but by now you'll have gotten the gist.

Unfortunately this idealistic principle (no JS) attracts the worst people.

You're on Tor? You have JS disabled? I might as well warm up fbi.gov/investigate/cyber for the probable report I'll have to do...

"Unfortunately this idealistic principle (no JS) attracts the worst people."

Again, how did you come to that opinion? Where's your evidence/stats? Generally comments like that come from web/JS programmers who've realized that client-side users have them stymied when they disable JS.

An additional reason I avoid JS is speed, webpages become blinding fast when there's no JS. Once one gets addicted to the great rendering speed there's no return. I'm not against JS per se, trouble is you JS programmers have weaponised it against users, webpages of 7, 10 and even 20MB are now commonplace. Presenting such slow massive pages to users is nothing other than abuse.

I do not use Tor.

BTW, I should point out that my views about JS and privacy abuse were formed from my years working in govt. surveillance where the stakes are very high.

That does not change what I have dealt with. I am not a “JavaScript fanboy” remember I made a community that could work WITHOUT needing JavaScript and that lead to a bunch of grief for me which made me understand the extreme naivety of that original idealistic idea on the internet.

If legal tender is offered as a method of exchange then it should automatically be the best (least expensive).

Frankly, what's happened here is outrageous. By not legislating and outlawing this practice we've another instance of government ineptitude.

It's understandable that modern pre-made clothes have to trade off the number of sizes and fittings. Unlike tailored clothes, economies of production mean they cannot be an ideal fit for everyone.

However, what I find completely inexcusable is that modern pants' pockets are almost inevitably too small, and often even zippers are too short making changing in and out of them awkward. These are rarely an issue with suits.

I'm fed up having my smartphone, keys and coins fall to the floor whenever I sit down. The problem is even worse in vehicles as the seats tilt back further. I've permanently lost smartphones because of shallow pockets.

Unlike clothes' sizes, there is no intrinsic limitation to pocket sizes, so why do we continue tolerate pockets that are not fit for purpose?

It's not only a pants problem, shirts regularly have pockets that are too shallow to take a pen, even the upper pockets of my overalls are not deep enough for a pen let alone a notebook or 6" rule.

Surely I'm not the only person who whinges about this. Why are pocket sizes a problem nowadays when never so decades ago?

It's the main reason I mostly wear jeans. The five pocket configuration's vertical orientation holds onto its contents better than the slanted pockets of slacks and chinos.

I would really like some slacks with vertical deep pockets. Jeans get so boring.

I'm guessing, but I'd imagine as jeans first became popular in the days of horse riding side pockets really weren't a practical option, the rider's motion would contribute to things sliding out of them.

My complaint is that modern clothes designers have forgotten or stopped implementing good pocket design that was fully solved several centuries ago.

"I would really like some slacks with vertical deep pockets."

So would I, and deep pockets do exist but unfortunately not in mass produced pants that are commonly available (one's regular clothing). I have some army BD fatigues/dungarees with really good side pockets. They're not only deep but they're cut in a sort of a shallow 'P' shape. The P-cut at the bottom forces keys etc. to slide down one's side at 90° to the pocket exit when one is sitting. It's thus almost impossible to accidentally lose something out of them.

The questions are why don't manufacturers just copy this excellent design and why don't more people complain. If people stopped buying pants with shallow pockets the problem would be solved overnight.

My solution is to have my local drycleaning shop that offers an alteration service to deepen the pockets. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get right-sized pockets manufacturers should have provided.

What on earth would possess anyone to buy an AI/screen based fridge in the first place? Screen addiction must be worse than I'd realized.

More broadly, Force majeure refers to an act of God or such outside of human control.

Moreover, the reduction in or loss of manual trades (woodworking, machining, toolmaking, etc.) whether at home or in industry, amounts to an overall deskilling of the citizenry which has strategic implications.

The the hobbyist in the garage needs to be the topic here, not professionals. The hobbyist enjoying things in the garage still exists, but is still rare. Those that do the work are skilled. If you want to join them there are plenty of books on the subject, it just takes some practice to develop the skills.

Industry is of course deskilled.

This ought to be a salient lesson: never store card details online despite the convenience. Further, as I do, use only a debit card for online purchases with the available credit only marginally more that for one's immediate purchase. It's also an excellent policy in case of being hacked.

Companies that allow employees to use cards with essentially unfettered credit have to take a large amount of the blame in circumstances such as this. There's no reason other than bad policy or irregular monitoring of expenses to allow expenses of this magnitude to build up. The company's financial policies need drastic overhaul.

"Bluff" because no one other than perhaps Stalin would have followed through—to essentially extend WWII (this time between former allies).

So pragmatism was the order of the day, thus Poland and EE were sacrificed.

It seems to me the EU is overburdened with trivial regulations (like regulating the maximum power consumption of domestic vacuum cleaners) rather than prioritizing core issues of its single market, manufacturing, trade, etc.

Trouble is small vested interests hold overly powerful sway over EU-wide policy. The example above is a case in point, individual member states should be able to set their own regulations independently if deemed warranted.

You're correct, annoying regulations are bloating the EU bureaucracy making it lethargic and uncompetitive.

People proclaim this with such confidence, especially in the UK before the Brexit years I must say, and yet there are so many arguments against it.

First, accepting this goes against a core tenet of the single market, since the single market for vacuum cleaners is now split into 27 little markets. We thus need 27 regulatory bodies to each investigate, and then make a political decision, on the maximum power setting of domestic vacuum cleaners. Then, producers in China will have to make (up to) 27 different models of vacuum cleaners. This is certainly not going to be cheaper, completely destroys the famous Brussels effect [0], all for some token amount of "sovereignty".

Nations states can sovereignly decide to delegate this process of rule making to Brussels, and domestic vacuum cleaners are a perfectly mundane "case in point" to showcase the benefits of this process. The EU is far from a perfect union, but throwing these frankly naive arguments around will not help it much.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect

That's unfettered capitalism at work—"free" implies no bounds. Multinational corporations have never been more powerful now than at anytime in history.

No bounds for whom?

Your implied premise is that private companies cannot impede others' freedom, which isn't true. In unfettered capitalism, only the largest corporations have the power and money to be free.