dwindling7373

Our equivalent is nuclear radiations.

Not what I meant: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/3.3-Overrides-%5BTo-RFP-or-Not%5D#-fingerprinting

"If you do nothing on desktop, you are already uniquely identifiable - screen, window and font metrics alone are probably enough - add timezone name, preferred languages, and several dozen other metrics and it is game over. Here is a link to the results of a study done in 2016 showing a 99.24% unique hit rate (and that is excluding IP addresses).

Changing a few prefs from default is not going to make you "more unique" - there is no such thing."

Basically making yourself less unique is impossible so there's no sensible tradeoff to be made (other than in the context of Tor and Mullvad Browser).

You see, as a nuclear physicist...

Am I wrong to assume trying to blend in is a worse and contradictory strategy than trying to actively protect yourself from tracking?

If you want to not be unique, use default setting chrome without adblock. Your browser will look just like anybody else's, but they will literally know who you are.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you lock everything down and spike as a very special browser and... that's all they know.

Fuck if I know, but it looks a lot like the Temple of Portunus...

Capitel and colums are in greek style, maybe the stairs give it away?

At the end of the day of course the solution to forming the most accurate opinion of Stalin is to study Stalin.

I'll point though that apparently my stance has some merit since Stalin himself with his "What was I to do?" is at the very least considering his situation as problematic.

As a last contribution to the discussion, which I've been glad to take part of and that I'm grateful you invested time and effort in, even in recent time we have instances of head of states that ultimately grow exhausted with their role and honestly desire to step down. That's not always possible, especially when so much of the state is directly tied to their person (kings, for example), and does not prove they previously chased, and/or held, that position with selfless disposition.

Thanks again for the thoughtful and well sourced contribution.

That's only fair.

I already mentioned that trying to resign and being met with unanimous rejection doesn't say much, other than possibly the obvious fact that he was in fact a human and not a robot.

To reform the system he could have rejected the idea of a single head of state in favor of a shared position, he could have set up the lenght of time by which a person can be head of state...

The possibilities are endless and history has made this kind of necessities abundandly clear to guarantee decision makers hold their position selflessly.

But he never stepped down or reformed the system to account for these issues. Hence my opinion of him.

I didn't see your edit: I guess my point is Stalin did not act under socialism, or surely not in an environment where corruption, if not coming from necessity, would hinder or be neutral to one growth within society.

I used propaganda as an easy, inaccurate answer to your request for a potential scenario.

Of couse the obvious limits of propaganta (primarily, being lies) is not what I was focusing on.

If we agree Stalin could have sexually assaulted someone and get away with it, we cycle back to the messianic property of Stalin to be better than most other people in a similar position through history. Or to not be affected by dementia, to not grow complacent, to not hold grudges, to be permanently unbiased and pure.

I'm not using speculation reaching for impossible scenarios.

I'm questioning the degree of freedom that anybody could have taken advantage of if they wanted to. The fact that this happened or not is irrelevant.

Given that, I also make another separate point about how greed can have many faces, even outside Capitalism.

Combining those two I question the amount of self reflection Stalin subjected himself and his role to through his life.

You are surely well aware of the nefarious propaganda the west did against Stalin.

Imagine it was true and you have the perfect depiction on how such corruption would potentially look like.

Another simple example? Stalin could have promised an administraive role to a person in exchange for sexual favors.

I'm not saying he did, but, under Communism, or rather under the trasition toward communism, that would have been a possible abuse of [not power].