Yep, that’s the one!

Can you delete or edit your own content?

Well, let me know when you’re using either for your regular browsing. If that’s in my lifetime, I’ll happily admit they were a bad example (and be a lot more comforted about the state of the web).

I don’t think there’s anyone on planet earth who can build a browser at a budget of, say, 2 million USD annually. See also: Ladybird and Servo not being anywhere near ready.

Also integration with Firefox (or like this) can be pretty neat. Though I hear Mullvad has its own Firefox fork now, probably with the same idea.

Sorry, you’re saying that if 85 percent of funding disappears (hundreds of millions), and “weird spending” (including the venture fund, which usually make money) to the tune of 0.3 million (let’s make that 2 million, assuming they have several such projects) is cut, then that would be able to sustain Firefox? Because that math doesn’t add up for me.

I’m aware of that sentiment, and I agree that it’s misguided and that there’s no way that that would cover costs.

Feel free to share how much money they spend on random advocacy. I believe the Google deal nets a couple of hundred million - it sounds like you’re saying that if Mozilla scraps the AI and advocacy, that should recoup that money? Because otherwise losing the money is still going to require finding other sources of income to fund Firefox.

Yes, but we’re yelling years and years into the future, if ever, so let’s keep our eyes on the ball in the meantime.

If Mozilla loses the Google revenue, it’ll have to do more other stuff if it’s to have any hope of being able to subsidise Firefox development though.

Note there’s a group of users that larger than the group of users without JS (for whatever reason): users of assistive technology. And they don’t even have a choice.

While I’m all for considering the needs of every user… If you get to the point where you’re worrying about no-JS users, I hope you’ve already considered the needs of people with disabilities, whether temporary or permanent.

Edit: oh right, wanted to add: just making a site work without JS doesn’t automatically make it accessible to people with special needs.

I’m not sure which button you’re talking about, but if it’s the one in the sidebar, click “Customise sidebar”, and then uncheck “AI chatbot”.

By now you would’ve expected someone to have pointed out what code is actually collecting that data that’s supposedly sold.

They’re saying they want something like Synaptic (mostly for its “multi-select”, apparently, though I’m not sure what that means?), but have it support AppImages, Flatpaks, Snaps, etc., instead of just Debs like Synaptic does.

Almost my entire career I’ve worked in open source, so it’s very easy to see what my technical work looks like. No one has ever looked at it.

When I have been on the other side, I have looked at the GitHub “portfolio” of junior applicants, but TBH, it didn’t bring me much. There will always be lots of opportunities for improvements in those examples, but that’s the point - I expect them to improve on the job.

More experienced developers will almost never have significant work on GitHub, and if they do, it’s not a “portfolio”, but just their past work.

Maybe learn to take screenshots first? :P

Published 8 years ago

I didn’t know that the new generation of developers were that far along in their careers already.

Nah, it’s a Next.js error.

I use Pika Backup to backup my home to this super cheap cloud host.

Yeah I was just elaborating on your point.