Karunamon

Wait a sec. Something which provides such an unambiguous quality of life upgrade by addressing one of the biggest health problems in the country, is only now available because of regulations?

Surely it's not that simple.

That assumes perfect accuracy. If a command is misheard then you probably need to correct whatever is now in the wrong state, and then definitely reissue the original command. If its text input then you have to do some select/correct dance. Both of these things take a lot of time.

Asking why a tech company whose only product of note is slowly dying, why they are spending money on unrelated advocacy, is entirely reasonable though?

All you have done is convict him conclusively of having an opinion while not liberal. Guilty as charged. I am unclear why that is such a problem.

Theres no such thing as unbiased, so lets set that impossible-to-meet standard aside.

Anytime Mozilla comes up here, the question comes up about supporting Firefox development without the pile of other stuff they do. There is no way to do so. Perhaps their lack of focus is a concern that crosses partisan lines, and ignoring those concerns simply because of tribalism is unwise?

Thats all well and good, but you said nothing of substance about the link. The fact you dislike his political stances tells us nothing.

Its strange to see so much moralizing in this thread about a device which only receives signals and can't harm another being unless maybe thrown hard enough.

Most speed limits are artificially low to the point where slavish adherence makes them the safety issue, rather than everyone else breaking the law.

Those privileged actions are mostly irrelevant when discussing mass surveillance. Doubly so since they can just buy or acquire the data from corps.

For one, not throwing out their only differentiated advantage versus Chrome. For two, not taking the option that removes user control and customization whenever there is an option to do so. They could have been the privacy-focused browser, but it is still full of crap like this and various bits of undisclosed telemetry.

There would be value in being the only browser to actually stop when users tell them no. But they seem incapable of listening.

Moving ssh off of port 22 makes it a pain in the ass to work with. Ports are standardized for a reason.

Authentication attempts are a useful security signal; I don't want to filter them out. I want hosts running dictionary attacks to not be able to connect to my services in the first place. If you are running an SSH bot, then I don't want you on my website or anything else.

That is not the correct label for this argument. The argument is that there are a limited amount of hours in the day and that there are different amounts of risk. The optimal amount of risk is probably not zero.

There is a very good argument to be made that training AI is fair use, as it is both transformative and does not compete with the original work. This has yet to be tested in court.

The extraordinary nature of a claim or its proof is by nature a subjective one.

Are there such a thing as UI experts anymore? It seems like we only have designers left, and I am none too thrilled about their influence.

There is always a other criteria for concern. Basically nobody understands their own desire to police the behavior of other people as merely doing something that they don't like.

Trying to get people fired crosses a line into harassment, as far as I'm concerned. But if we are talking about mere words on the screen, nothing else, then you do have the ability to turn the device off and walk away.

The problem there is that by default a virtual environment version of Python is just a symbolic link to the actual binaries installed elsewhere on the machine. If you do an OS upgrade or do anything that increments the system Python version, it could cause problems in the environment.