sandbox

Reddit also was open source, until it wasn’t.

• this is a worldwide news sub. the bot is ridiculously US-centric. everything it considers left or centre is right wing at best.

• it’s the pet project of literally one guy, based entirely on his opinions. he’s very clearly got biases, too: very pro-right wing, pro-israeli.

• it has extremely ridiculous justifications for a lot of why the “left” publications are considered “mixed”, and right-wing publications don’t get the same treatment.

It’s just totally useless garbage. It would be just as worthwhile as having a bot to automatically post my personal opinion of every news website beneath every post on this community.

I don’t disagree on principle - society is better with some people dead - but I don’t agree that the state should ever have that amount of power over anyone.

I think you have a conclusion that you’re arguing towards rather than letting observations draw you to a conclusion. Here’s a link to an article you might find interesting - https://archive.org/details/sim_columbia-journalism-review_july-august-1998_37_2/page/n29/mode/2up

The media sold out loooong before the Internet took off. They’re entirely to blame for the position that they’re in. And they’re, at least partially, to blame for the state of modern society.

Imagine if you subscribed to a YouTuber and they had good content. You subscribe to their patreon. At some point later, they take on a bunch of sponsorships, and eventually they just become a corporate mouthpiece for their sponsors. Then their entire channel just gets bought by the corporation and is ran as a corporate social media account. At what point would you cancel your Patreon subscription? Would you say that refusing to pay that YouTuber for their videos means that you have a part to play in the process whereby they ultimately ended up as a corporate social media account?

Because that is ultimately what happened with the media, in my opinion.

I think that would be an example of a wildly unpopular change, yeah.

They’re probably not lying, that implies that they’re intentionally trying to deceive. They believe what they say, I’m pretty sure of that. They’re just wrong.

Not sure what you mean - I don’t think most of the people still using Firefox are going to switch to a Chromium based browser any time soon, I can’t speak for everyone of course but it feels like Firefox users tend to have an ideological objection to Google having a monopoly on web browsers.

It’s always worth trying a different browser when you have issues on websites - there are a lot of things that can be different beyond the layout and javascript engines - cookies, configuration, addons, etc. Yesterday I noticed a big difference between Chromium and Firefox in that even if you hard-refresh on a HTTP/2 connection, Chromium reuses a kept-alive connection, and firefox doesn’t — I would totally argue that Firefox’s implementation is more correct, but Chrome’s implementation will lead to a better experience for users hard-refreshing.

I can understand the objections to wasm and even JS, but CSS? c’mon bro…

Even if the Mozilla foundation went bankrupt tomorrow, Firefox would persist. It might not be as quick to update, but it’s an open source project that people will keep working on, regardless of the money.

The moment that Firefox goes too far, it’ll immediately be forked and 75% of the user base would leave within a few months. Their user base is almost entirely privacy-conscious, technologically savvy people.

MacOS supports PAM and LDAP just like any enterprise-class UNIX system, as well as lots of enterprise class device management tools such as InTune.

If you know what you’re doing, it’s more manageable than Windows, even.