All your sources rely on the same primary source: the interior ministry. And I don't see a breakdown of the acts. In a number of articles, graffiti of stars of David across buildings in France was categorized as anti-Semitic, which seems really weird to me because they weren't defaced or altered in any way, just stars of David. On its face I would think that was...pro-semitic.

Either way, I'm not denying there has been an uptick in anti-Semitism and that any and all anti-semitism is indefensible. But there also seems to be a deliberate effort to embellish the narrative by treating anti-Israeli or pro-Paletinian acts as anti-Semitic. Then people react to that narrative with fear, and their fear is used to further credit the narrative.

The insidious part is that these stories treat the narrative as support for Israel's ongoing aggression.

I feel for anyone who feels unsafe in their homes and communities. I can't imagine the weight of the decision to uproot yourself and your family to emigrate to another country for reasons beyond your control, especially discrimination.

It's worth noting, though, that this article seemingly goes out of its way to obfuscate what qualifies as anti-semitic acts.

"This kind of expression is no longer coming only from the extreme right, but also by the far left — and while it’s doubtful that it’s always antisemitic, anyone sensitive can feel that it’s never far away in certain discourse,” warns Wieviorka.

Palestinian solidarity is not anti-semitism, and there are abundant indicators (from this article and its links) they're being conflated in France.

"Tracking protection" sounds more like "alternative tracking."

Google's Privacy Sandbox initiative, just like its name implies, was designed to be an alternative to cookies that will allow advertisers to serve users ads while also protecting their privacy. It assigns users to groups according to their interests, based on their recent browsing activities, and advertisers can use that information to match them with relevant ads.

Lot of time, money, and effort toward a moderate improvement rather than just not perceiving users as products. But...improvement is improvement.

What's the downside?

Me? Not at all. I actually posted this out of concern because, as I've said elsewhere, I'm a Firefox user, and my layman's impression was that its reputation has been improving over the past couple years. I assumed its user base was doing the same as people grew increasingly concerned with Google's intentions.

Apparently ZDnet has some reputational issues itself I was unaware of.

I don't think so. The article claims Firefox lost some of its lead developers to Google when it started developing Chrome and then took a long time to regain its footing around 2017. That sounds about right to my recollection. I had admittedly switched to Chrome myself for a while (I'm not terribly tech-savvy, maybe a little more than average) but switched back to Firefox last year. I am still pretty deeply embedded in the Google ecosystem though in other ways.

As a relatively elder millennial (1987), I'd concede the title of last true pre-internet generation to Gen X. My family got AOL dial-up when I was in 6th grade, which was a little behind the curve compared to my peers, but not much. So I certainly lived through a seminal transition period as the internet developed and became...what it is today.

But the hallmark experiences of the pre-internet times, payphones, paper maps, coordinating with others, I only did so in my limited capacity as a child. I had a cell phone by...10th grade, I could at least print out MapQuest directions, etc.

I remember a lot, but didn't truly interact with most of it.

Neutral party here, I read it naturally as a supplement to your comment, not an opposition. I don't detect an argumentative tone personally.

Comcast said it “promptly patched and mitigated its systems,” it said it later discovered that prior to the repair operation, between Oct. 16 and Oct. 19, “there was unauthorized access to some of (its) internal systems that (it) concluded was a result of this vulnerability,”

Where "promptly" means at least 9 days later. I understand patching production systems isn't just a point and click operation, but vulnerability and patch management is a competency that Comcast is responsible for. The fact that they're not named as a defendant in the suit is really, really weird.

I read this more as "Heads of 3 top US colleges refuse to trap themselves in what was likely to be a performative thread of anti-Palestinian questions from one of Congress's most shameless clown-people (Elise Stefanik)."

To be clear, from the article itself:

The university leaders all personally criticized anti-Israel activism.

On second thought, it may not have even been anti-Palestinian per se, but rather more careless exploitation in pursuit of CRT-adjacent nonsense.

Some Republicans sought to paint campus antisemitism as a product of universities embracing “the race-based ideology of the radical left,”

Just before the vote was about to begin, Max Miller of Ohio, one of Santos' Republican colleagues, sent an email to the full Republican conference, writing that he and his mother were victims of credit card fraud tied to Santos' campaign and that he would be voting to remove Santos.

"Neither my Mother nor I approved these charges or were aware of them," Miller wrote in the email obtained by NPR. "We have spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees in the resulting follow up."

Can't imagine a more appropriate way to miss the point.

I am a total ignoramus about law, but this sounds more like a legislative failure than a judicial one.

But the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act’s standard that a plaintiff must prove that “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation” has been threatened.

If we had comprehensive federal data privacy law, then we wouldn't have to challenge these practices against wet-noodle state laws that weren't actually designed for it, right?

If I were predisposed toward conspiracies I would definitely be convinced by now that every medium-to-large business owner in the country was part of a secret cabal who made a pact to demand return to office for whatever terrible reason sounded good to them.

My own workplace is mandating a hybrid model for any employees within 30 miles of an office after "much research, discussion, and debate with employees." They've typically been very reasonable and generous to their workforce, and I just don't understand what they're thinking, honestly.