Because the general population doesn't know much about data privacy and they are purposefully mislead and inticed into accepting agreements that share all that information out. The point of NBTV is to raise awareness.

I found an official guide when hunting around in the Minecraft Help Center, but it also seems to not work just like the unofficial one I mentioned. It says to go to the 15th anniversary page (the one that currently tells us about buying tickets for Minecraft Experience) and scroll down to the "Get the 15th Anniversary Cape!" section, which doesn't seem to exist anymore. So I think this is just a case of Mojang not updating their help page's information. I decided that as much as I really want the cape, I can't be bothered going through Microsoft Support for it; Microsoft Support just sucks, lol.

Ok, thanks, I'll see if I can contact Microsoft; I've not had a good history with their support though.

The link I sent, I also got from the waybackmachine

Oh, did you? Your link is of the original page and not a waybackmachine link. Likely what you did was you copied the link from the in-website address bar by mistake. The address contained in it is the original version of the address; not the archived one. So to copy the actual waybackmachine archived version of the link, you need to copy the address from the web-browser its selves own address bar. I made the same mistake in my last comment, and I had to edit it to fix it, because the links were directing to the original pages rather than the archived ones which I had manually saved.

When I click the sign in button, it redirects me to the same page I linked first in my post. I'm not sure if there are regional differences or what (I'm in Australia, but I don't think it should matter), but in case we are seeing a different version of the page from each other, I manually saved both the pages to the waybackmachine so you can see exactly what I'm seeing. So essentially, your link takes me to this page, and clicking "Sign in with Microsoft" automatically signs me in and directs me to this page (the same as what I linked first in the post). On the latter page, I can't find anything on it about redeeming the cape. I checked my profile settings in the cape section just to be sure it hadn't somehow redeemed itself, but no, I don't have it.

Okay, I'll give it another try tomorrow and see if I missed something.

I'm literally only interested in the 15th Anniversary Creeper Cape, and I'm not interested in the marketplace content for bedrock either.

It's all good thanks, @gamingnscience can have your TikTok code if they want it. Thanks though, appreciate it.

Reason for deletion: Decided it wasn't worth arguing like my last comment said. The readers are smart enough to see what's stupid about your comment without me having to defend myself.

Update: Oh, you deleted all your comments, good job.

You are already doing it here

Note the s at the end of "Web Browsers" and think about what that means.

for reasons you are contradicting.

Where? Show me.

you are parroting their nonsense takes on browser security

Telling people what they said. If I was parroting them, I would have just said the information provided as though it was my own words; which the use of the word parroting is.

Vanadium

Is completely irrelevant to the privacy of GrapheneOS, since being an OS, it can inherently be uninstalled and replaced with any other browser. Does that excuse shipping an unprivate browser on a supposedly-private OS? No. Does that make OS inherently unprivate? No.

Now I didn't want to make any more arguments but you gave me good reason to. Now you can reply to this comment, but I'm not going to reply, because I could actually spend far less time researching what you've brought up and make up my own mind.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but this video style is only meant to discuss the issue, not simply tell people exactly what's happening and end it at that. But I see your point, and I've noted it: I'll make sure I share more quick and to-the-point video's when I do in the future.

I'm not going to argue with you, because I can see it won't accomplish anything good, so I'll just leave it at this:

No, I did not promote the Chromium monopoly, I simply asked a question, about a security issue with Firefox; this is not the same as promotion. If I wanted to promote the monopoly, this post would have been telling people why they shouldn't use Firefox and I would have posted it on a more broad community about Web Browsers and done so on Reddit for the most impact. I'm against this monopoly, and I intentionally go out of my way to not recommend Chromium-based browsers to people. Discussion about issues with something you love is only healthy, not a promotion of another side.

I'm not taking sides because I don't currently have time or energy to look into the issues GrapheneOS and/or Micay may or may not have, but I will say that I don't know how you could think (at least based on the information I referenced from Graphene in my post) that they are saying or implying to people that Firefox is less secure. They did say it was inherently less secure on Android, but not in general. They did say that the Site Isolation feature specifically is less secure even on Desktop, but they didn't say that Firefox as a whole is inherently less secure, just that it currently is on Android. I can see how an average reader may interpret that as Firefox being less secure than Chromium as a whole, but that would simply be their own misinterpretation of what's being said.

and "The moment anyone starts calling Firefox insecure, immediately become alert". Why? Anything is capable of being insecure and Firefox equally so. At any given time, Firefox could have security vulnerabilities (as it does), so it's quite ridiculous to automatically assume that anyone calling Firefox out for being insecure in some way is just Daniel Micay or his "minions"

"Micay and GrapheneOS, and fans/members associated like OP are well known for...". Are you accusing me of being associated with Micay and GrapheneOS, or am I misunderstanding you?

I'm no professional, but from my research I've been doing, it appears that the risk (at least one of them) is that a hacker could in theory create a website that exploits this vulnerability. If you access their website, their site could be capable of stealing sensitive information from the other Firefox tabs that you may have loaded on the side, at any given time.

I don't see where they said any of that. Nothing was implied here, you're just making assumptions about their point of view.

I know how helpful GPS is. Also, I am not paranoid, and you shouldn't be making those kinds of assumptions about anyone you don't know. I simply want to minimize private data being open for abuse and am exploring what can and can't be done, and their benefits and disadvantages. This after all, is the privacy community you're talking in; where you share advice and knowledge about enhancing ones privacy, not telling them they are paranoid for pursuing it.

So you're saying that other electronics used within the car (ones that aren't damaged by the lack of antenna) may be able to detect the lack of antenna as a "fault" and thus hinder their own functionality? Also, by "antenna", are you referring to the one used for the radio? Like an Aerial? So my understanding is that giving the antenna connection a "dummy load" is a way of removing the antenna, and stopping the sending of data, without damaging or hindering any other electronics/components of the car.

I can see the logic of that and I think that should be an option too. Although I wouldn't personally use that (unless what I mentioned wasn't an option and this was)

If it doesn't have a full-time connection, it's still possible to have an eSim, right?

This is the first I've heard of a dummy load. What exactly would be the purpose of replacing the antenna with a dummy load?

Thanks, I didn't know the eSims weren't physical cards.

Btw, 3G network is shutting down extremely soon for both Optus and Telstra (and providers using their networks), so I won't be able to do that with any future car. Telstra is going on August 31, Optus is going in September. Your phone probably isn't locked to 3G, but even if your phone supports 4G and/or 5G but does not support a technology called "VoLTE", you may not be able to call emergency services after the 3G closure date. Both Telstra and Optus have provided an option to easily check if your phone is compatible after the closure. Using either Optus, Telstra, or other providers using their network, you can text 3 to the number 3498 and they will send you an automated message telling you whether your phone will be affected after the closure or not.

https://www.optus.com.au/support/mobiles-tablets-wearables/important-changes-3g

https://www.telstra.com.au/support/mobiles-devices/3g-closure