You obviously do not understand what am saying.
I don't think you understand at all what being political actually means.
You clearly dislike this person because your and their political positions are at odds, and you seem to want to make that a priority. That is fine! I do that all the time.
I just thought it is absurd that you would think that this decision (or your argument) is not political, because it is.
I just tried to illustrate the obvious by quoting some of the many political things you've written before saying that what you write isn't political.
Like.. why would you think that?
I hate Temu, but this (apparently contracted?) Grizzly Reports report isn't really all that trust inspiring, tbh.
Our experts identified a stack of software functions that are completely inappropriate to and dangerous
The stack difference to the Amazon app they list:
- Package compile
- Requesting system logs
- Some code obfuscation
- Mac address collection
- Install permission
- Wake lock
Meh. That's just a sliver worse than your regular, off the shelves proprietary corporate app. I don't see how they can pull off the promise of being a truly dynamic Android app from that report.
I do believe they hover up data, but they aren't otherworldly super hackers. They will probably just ask for the data and the users will hand it over in a second. For most people, it really is that simple.
So what's preventing those people from using bookmarks as "check this out later" tool?
Bookmarking a page does not give you control over its content. So if you bookmark something and the host deletes it, you are screwed.
If you instead clip the content or save it as a PDF, you retain access regardless of the original host.
For example, I save every good article I read as a PDF, which I cloud sync to a folder. I have a second folder for stuff I don't want to keep open as a tab but still want to read later. There are probably far better services out there, but I like the lack of technical dependencies and lock-in.
CEO is a homophobic shithead. ... Privacy is important ... Privacy is good ... Society is toxic ... calling out people who specifically want to legally control how others (harmlessly) live their lives is not itself toxic ... His opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I think this is rather invasive. ... My point is that someone who is willing to donate thousands to homophobic lobbyists doesn't seem to care about gay people's rights to Privacy ...
And then:
I am not sharing political opinions
Brilliant.
Although I am not sure whether it is art or delusion.
Yeah, just create an entirely new, incompatible extension engine from scratch for this one feature specifically!
This is absolutely not how any of this works.
While Mozilla implements the WebExtensions API based on the W3C standard, they are not bound to a 100% verbatim implementation. Like other browser vendors, Mozilla has the flexibility to extend or modify the API as needed, as long as they maintain compatibility with the core standard. Adding new APIs or features to the extension system does not require creating an entirely incompatible engine. Browser vendors often add non-standard extensions to APIs, which can later be proposed for inclusion in the next version of the standard if they prove useful. So, Mozilla can certainly add new APIs to their extension system without making it incompatible with the existing WebExtensions ecosystem. This is not difficult to understand.
Mozilla isn't in charge of the extension API, it uses Chromium's WebExtensions API
No. They are basing their implementation on that of Chrome, but nobody is forcing Mozilla to do this ... So yes, Mozilla is responsible for all the APIs they integrate. Of course.
Like yea, it'a technically a levie, not a tax. This whole "it's different because it does not go through the budget" is such a learned talking point. We have it in Germany as well with our state funded public media houses. You say something about their bias, count to five and suddenly someone appears and tells you that same story of fictional independence through funding through levie.
The extension APl doesn't have enough access for this.
If that's the case, then it's pretty great that Mozilla is also the exact company in charge of the extension API.
I have only one extension, and I use it longer than I use Firefox. I also trust the developer a lot more than I trust Mozilla.
Wenn man sich erst mal daran gewöhnt hat, der Willkür eines Milliardärs ausgesetzt zu sein, fühlt es sich vielleicht ganz heimelig an.
Naja BSW muss jetzt einigermaßen schnell profilbildend in der Presse bleiben, sonst überlebt die Marke ihre erste Krise nicht.
Das geht halt nicht, wenn man nichts dramatisches macht.
Die Linkspartei z.B. ist ein sehr schönes Beispiel, wie man durch moderate on-the-fence Positionen trotz Bundestagsfraktion innerhalb von ein paar Jahren einfach in Vergessenheit geraten kann. Kein Mensch weiß heute, wofür die Linkspartei im Bund eigentlich steht.
Diese Rede stand gerade an und der Boykott hat zu ein paar wütenden Kommentaren in den Zeitungen geführt; hätte rein aus der Diskursperspektive für BSW gar nicht besser laufen können.
Wenn der Verbrenner eh verschwindet, ist ein Verbot doch unnötig. Also da steht ja nichts davon, einen sterbenden Verbrenner-Markt künstlich am Leben zu halten.
Wieso das allerdings gerade jetzt ein Thema sein soll... keine Ahnung.
edit: mehrere im Thread behaupten, es gäbe kein Verbrenner-Verbot. ... Aber klar gibt's das, denn die Nummer mit den efuels ist ein Hirngespinst.
Zu behaupten es gäbe deshalb kein Verbrennerverbot weil eine extrem teure, quasi nicht verfügbare Substanz weiterhin verbrannt werden darf ist einfach ein unaufrichtiges Argument.
The context is important here - ...
Why would context be important here? Institutionally it is a bad idea, even if an indigenous population ten times as big would've been mistreated ten times worse. The hard question would be: How would anything happening in the past improve this specific policy proposal?
It seems very lacking on a legitimacy level, appears to be functionally questionable and has evidently led to increased polarization prior to even being enacted.
The Voice was asked for as a product of the Uluru Statement of the Heart - not long, worth a read- https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/
I like that it's very prosaic and well crafted. I don't like that they fail to make the case how past and current tragedies relate to the specific proposal. There's also no evidence, benchmarking or any other kind of reference indicating the expected performance of their proposed setup. I've yet to find a paper outlining how the "voice" is actually supposed to work.
It was really first and foremost about having an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, the settlers cocked things up and that it’d better to fix things together. ...
That's cool. Why didn't they do two proposals, one with the acknowledgement the other one with the suspicious institution?
... It’s not asking for anything “more” or extra ...
It's asking for the creation of a permanent advisory body. Are we on the same page here?
But now instead we get to try to explain to our kids why 60% of the country don’t think representation or inclusion matters while indigenous Australians will continue to struggle without a government that can listen to them.
I do think representation and inclusion matter a lot and, as said, I'd strongly oppose this advisory body. Do you think it's a black and white issue? One needs to like this specific thing or be a bad person?
I don't think that is a productive take on this referendum. There are certainly many loving and caring people on all sides of this referendum.
Die Zuwanderung ist eine zentrale Frage unserer Zeit. Wenn wir mittelfristig unseren Lebensstandard (vor allem im Alter) nicht absenken wollen, brauchen wir sicher rund 20 Millionen gut (oder zumindest fertig) ausgebildete Zuwanderinnen und Zuwanderer.
Ich weiß, es sieht im Moment nicht gut aus, aber - Vorschlag: Wir geben ihnen Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und hoffen das Beste?
Oh dear, thanks for the link. I would have voted no, too. It does not sound like a great institution. (Although I'm German and reading about it for the first time rn, so..)
From what I read in this article, I'm not even sure it would be properly democratic? Reads like a government advisory body which claims to represent the interests of a specific heritage - pretty strange.
It really is a choice to claim someone said something which they did not actually say at all.
Saying "they said x and I think they meant y" is entirely different from claiming "they said y" while knowing they in fact said x.
This is not controversial. Interpretations are fine, actively crafting disinformation is not.