JavaScript is already sandboxed. You can only execute functions where there is an actual API defined by the browser to do so, for example Date.getTime(). There is / should be no way to get, say, your device ID. (With the exception of unpatched exploits that allow executing arbitrary code. But keep in mind browsers are likely one of the if not the most security tested software.)

What you linked to here appears to specific to Google Tag Manager in a way that I don't fully understand, but is not related to how websites usually execute JavaScript code.

There is something called "local storage" that allows applications to store more information than just a cookie. Cookies are sent to the server, while local storage, as the name implies, stays local. (That doesn't mean that this data can't be sent to the server via JavaScript.) But local storage makes it possible to make 100% offline applications if the whole webpage is cached / downloaded (assuming no online functionality is required).

edit: As for deleting this, if I click on the lock icon in the address bar in Firefox, I have an option to clear cookies and site data for the current site. I assume the "site data" is the local storage I mentioned. If you're using a Chrome based browser, you can probably google how to do the same thing.

I've heard some scary numbers when it comes to waste, but I don't have a source, nor do I intend to go digging for one because I'm already depressed enough. But you addressed neither of my other grievances. In the end I'd just prefer a future where work is automated, and not creativity nor thinking. I will speak up in this small space where I might be heard, when I believe corporations are betting on getting people hooked on AI because they've never learned to think or bothered to create for themselves, just so they can extract massive profits.

By all means, keep investing and being interested in specialized AI, AI research and AI ethics. But stay away from generative (text/image/video) AI.

This smells of AI. I can't quite find the usual artifacts I expect (though I'm not that experienced), but the positioning of the legs ~~and arms~~ don't make sense to me. edit: Which is weird because this seems to be an artist who has been at it for longer than AI art existed. Is this just a blunder?

Yeah, it should not be part of the text just like line numbers shouldn't be part of the code on a code hosting site, yet it can be visible, no? Later it does recommend using $ to distinguish command and output. Is it now okay for a beginner to be confused about what it means?

Then you should also override Equals(object), GetHashCode, and implement IEquatable<T>.

Thankfully a lot of the usual boilerplate code can be avoided using a record class or struct:

public record Person(string Name, uint Age);

Real classy of you to do the toddler thing of sticking your fingers in your ear and going "la la la I can't hear you". (It'll be an honor to share a spot on your block list with these other two fellas.)

The idea is that "roguelike" = a game like Rogue, which according to some people, requires checking most if not all of the boxes including ASCII, proc-gen, perma-death, turn-based, ... while the term "rougelite" is less strict. But I think we're past the point of that distinction being adopted into mainstream.

I think that explains the "how" more than the "why".

Version 5 of a software, device, vehicle or such isn't necessarily better than version 4, and no official definition of the word "version" require this, either. If I may make another anology: You may pick one of 5 different versions of an outfit to wear, and even though they were labeled in the order they were made, from 1 to 5, none are inherently, objectively better than any other. In the case of UUIDs there are versions that are meant to supercede others, but also simply alternatives for different use-cases. Anyone with access to some up-to-date information can learn what each version's purpose is.

At the moment, upvotes and downvotes, while not used that way by many people, is more about what others will see, rather than what content you like. It's more like a community moderating and rating effort. Upvotes make posts more visible, by pushing them further up in what's currently popular. Downvotes do the opposite, and in my personal opinion, should be reserved for posts that don't fit the community they were posted in, spam, or things that break rules – typically the same reason why you would (and should) report a post. They are not "agree" and "disagree" buttons. Topics you disagree with can still spark interesting conversations.

Using the same mechanic, voting, to tell an algorithm whether similar posts should have higher visibility on your own feed, would be incompatible with this existing system. Posts that get a quick reaction or emotion out of you are even further encouraged, while things you simply don't want to see (but aren't necessarily "bad") get punished heavily.

This system works through subscribing to communities you are interested in and actively participating in improving the health of those communities, rather than passively consuming content. That takes some effort, yes.

All in all I think this proposed system is not compatible with Lemmy, and maybe not even a good idea.

There's Android forks out there that avoid Google's crap. LineageOS and GrapheneOS come to mind. Though I'm less familiar with all that.