- AlienRobotImagine if normal engineering did that. Engineers invent a "blobby" thing that glues things together. It has amazing properties that increase productivity but sometimes it just stops working for some reason and comes off. It's totally random and because of how blobby is produced there is no way to tell when it's going to work or not, contrary to the typical material. Anyway we're going to use blobby to build everything from schools, to bridges, to airplanes now.
- >an error of translation from natural language to formal language
Really? Programming languages are all formal languages, which means all human-made errors in algorithms wouldn't be "bugs" anymore. Some projects even categorize typos as bugs, so that's a unusually strict definition of "bug" in my opinion.
- HTMX sounds like it works best when you are fetching data from endpoints that would serve HTML already, like <frame>-based sidebar navigation.
- At least it's not AI... yet.
- Why it feels like "this year will be the year of Linux desktop" didn't sound absurd enough for you so you went and upgraded the idea to "HL3 will be a Linux exclusive."
- They can steal Workspaces from Vivaldi.
Or they can steal vertical tabs from Vivaldi.
Or they can steal the built-in RSS client form Vivaldi.
Or they can steal the ability to save sessions from Vivaldi.
Or they can steal the built-in notes from Vivaldi.
Or they can steal the tab stacking from Vivaldi.
Or they can steal the profile switching from Vivaldi.
Honest question. What could Vivaldi "steal" from Firefox?
- >Perhaps if they implement this functionality conveniently, more average users will use Firefox.
I've tried Firefox before. I prefer Vivaldi, because it provides more convenience.
I can't actually tell you what Firefox does or where all that money is going to. It looks exactly like Chrome with negligible changes.
The critical problem, it seems, is that Firefox thinks people care about "privacy" only to the extent of being shown personalized ads. Literally nothing else matters. This feels to me like a recurring issue in technology, where an issue that users may have doesn't exist in the way they interact with the world, but only as a specific definition that can be measured or that be analyzed from a compliance perspective.
I have multiple profiles in Chrome and Vivaldi that let me switch between professional accounts and private accounts. That sounds like privacy to me, and I'd wager that for most people on the planet this is far more useful than the ability to avoid being shown ads for a thing you have already bought just because of tracking cookies. Why Firefox doesn't have this feature?
Vivaldi lets me subscribe to websites via RSS so I don't need to create an account to subscribe to things. That sounds like privacy to me. And I even have notes built into the browser. I don't use these today, but I used to use them when Vivaldi was called Opera. Firefox seems to have neither of these features. Again, I feel the need to ask, what features does Firefox actually have?
Maybe this is a "hot take" for Firefox developers, but if you want people to use your web browser maybe you should try offering functionality that other browsers don't offer? Yes, you can run some extensions that don't work on Chrome anymore, but that's not even a functionality of the browser. That is third-party. It quite literally depends on third-party developers bothering to develop extensions for a web browser that has a 2% market when they could instead use that time to develop extensions for Chrome or even Vivaldi.
If the only reason you want me to use Firefox is so that I don't use Chrome, that just doesn't feel very compelling.
- Thanks, but now I wish I hadn't asked. :(
- What does "jeetcoded" mean?
- The point is that it's simpler to understand what something is by analogy (a touchscreen is a mouse) than by abstraction (a mouse is a pointing device; a touchscreen is also a pointing device), since you need a third, abstracting concept to do the latter.
- That's very interesting!
Splitters make more sense to me since different things should be categorized differently.
However, I believe a major problem in modern computing is when the splitter becomes an "abstraction-splitter."
For example, take the mouse. The mouse is used to control the mouse cursor, and that's very easy to understand. But we also have other devices that can control the mouse cursor, such as the stylus and touchscreen devices.
A lumper would just say that all these types of devices are "mouses" since they behave the same way mouses do, while a splitter would come up with some stupid term like "pointing devices" and then further split it into "precise pointing devices" and "coarse pointing devices" ensuring that nobody has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
As modern hardware and software keeps getting built on piles and piles of abstractions, I feel this problem keeps getting worse.
- I don't know what virtue signaling means. I think you mean they just did it out of spite.
- This kind of thing is what makes me trust Valve.
- It's more like a torrent tracker telling users that a newspaper wants to know what people are torrenting because they "claim" people are torrenting the newspaper, but investigating this would be an invasion of privacy of the users of the torrent tracker.
This isn't even a hyperbole. It's literally the same thing.
- 1. That sounds useful.
2. That sounds useful.
3. That sounds useful.
4. That sounds useful.
5. That sounds useful.
Are these supposed to be examples of things that shouldn't be found out about? This has to be the worst pro-privacy argument I've ever seen on the internet. "Privacy is good because they will find out about our crimes"
- >They claim they might find examples of you using ChatGPT to try to get around their paywall.
Is this a joke? We all know people do this. There is no "might" in it. They WILL find it.
OpenAI is trying to make it look like this is a breach of user's privacy, when the reality is that it's operating like a pirate website and if it were investigated that would become proven.
- If you use a trillion dollar AI to probe open source code in ways that no hacker could, you're kind of unearthing the vulnerabilities yourself if you disclose them.
- I assume that this means you simply make all your work public domain, as you don't believe in copyright?
I don't believe that most creators would willingly let go of their right as you would.
- I don't understand this opinion.
The only leverage you have to stop Spotify from taking your music and publishing it without your permission is your copyright of the music.
In fact, every time I see a complaint about copyright it's always "we tried to do something at small scale for some noble purpose and couldn't because of pesky copyright laws," and it completely ignores the massive scale of abuse for profit purpose that would occur if copyright didn't exist.
Think of how AI scraped everyone's books without permission using the flimsy excuse that it's transformative work, except they wouldn't even need that excuse or the transformation. Amazon could just take everyone's books and sell it on Kindle, then kick out all authors because they only need to buy 1 book to resell it as if they were the owner of the book.
- What prevents me from stealing your work and selling it? Including the source code you wrote?