_phaq

Right, and I guess this is in particular a problem that Linux/BSD distributions face, where they want to apply small patches for interoperability and the like, but still want to offer it to their users as "Rust".

As someone from the EU: Also a blocker for all these Cookie notices (and I guess also Cookies).

I've been test-driving Mozilla's experimental Fenix browser. It already supports Tracking Protection (which happens to block most ads as well) and it's in general a really nice browser, but I can't stand using it for anything that isn't basically Wikipedia, because of those annoying Cookie notices.

Half-offtopic: I find it very interesting that Rasbian sticks to LXDE. I thought that was going to slowly disappear, with LXQt having developer attention and there being no path forward towards HiDPI and well, Wayland (because neither GTK2 nor Openbox support these).

LXQt currently still uses Openbox, but you can replace it with KWin rather easily. I don't know what is then still missing to create a proper LXQt Wayland session, but it seems feasible.

I guess, one does not really need HiDPI on a Raspberry Pi, but yeah, Wayland would be nice.

You'll have to nudge the F-Droid maintainers for that. They grab the source code and compile it themselves. The app developer isn't really involved, they just provide the source code and ideally ensure that it can be easily built by others.

Though you may want to give them a week or two before you go nudge them. They might build it on their own when they find time for it.

As aasasd pointed out, it exists, but isn't part of the core distribution.

The openSUSE folks include it (Geeko) in the version that you find in their repositories, so that's why you might think that it is included by default.

> This is a common error. Macroscopic "everyday" objects don't have a definite position and momentum. Macroscopic objects are quantum objects. But when the mass is big enough, the position and momentum can be defined simultaneously with an error that is so small that you can just ignore the uncertainty and approximate them as classical objects.

To put this into simpler terms:

Whenever we measure something, we need to throw something at it and then have that something rebound and hit us again. In most experiments, we throw photons and have them rebound into our eyes.

Throwing a photon against a "classical object" - a chair, a ladder, bacteria - is like throwing a tennis ball against a skyscraper. You throwing that does not have no effect at all, but it's very much negligible.

But when trying to measure quanta, you're now throwing your tennis ball at a football, or at another tennis ball. You're gonna be lucky, if it rebounds at all, instead of just pushing the object that you're trying to measure out of the way. (You also don't have any smaller balls to throw.)

That's why when you measure something in quantum physics, you only know that it has this exact value in the moment that you measure it. It's going to be pushed away because you threw something at it, so after your measurement it has a different value.

You also can't observe it over a longer period, so there's no way to know whether it was only in that moment at your measured position or a long time beforehand.

Clearly, it was a revelation to him. Which is Google's fault, not his. Google should communicate clearly and visibly what data they use and for what.

From an accessibility point of view, it's also recommended to avoid links that only span over such half-sentences.

Screen reader users will often navigate your page by cycling through the links that are on the page and then they'll get only the link-text read out, not the surrounding text.

It's definitely true that Mozilla needs funding beyond what users are willing to donate. Especially with other 'free' browsers available. But all scandals that I'm aware of were nonsense that journalists wanted to believe, in order to land the next big "the good guys are actually evil"-story.

A more privacy-friendly default search engine is clearly the elephant in the room, but their other financing strategies have been done to try to supersede that and to my knowledge did never infringe on privacy. If you feel different about one of them, please read up on it. There's been a lot of misinformation out there.

Mozilla would make themselves liable to prosecution, if they were to simply violate privacy without a very good reason, as privacy is an explicit goal of their legally-binding non-profit mission statement.

Having said that, there is a good reason why Mozilla has to compromise in terms of privacy. And that is webpage owners' interests.

Webpage owners want to track you. And they can opt to not support Firefox, if they can't track you. Which is kind of bad for Firefox and ultimately for Mozilla's mission, which is making the web a healthier place, for which they need Firefox even just as a second implementation of the web standards.

So, yes, they do have to balance out webpage owners' interests and yours. And yes, they cannot give you as privacy-friendly defaults as some of the browsers that don't have to care about webpage owners' interests. If you're a tiny Chromium fork, no one's going to block you, because mother Chrome is absolutely lovely to webpage owners.

But you should notice that Mozilla gives you the tools to fix the defaults and goes to great lengths to be privacy-friendly when webpage owners are not involved.

In my opinion, that is not really separate.

Pretty much all companies constantly whip their employees to get things done as fast as possible. And if that definition of "done" does not explicitly contain interoperability, then even the most well-intending employees will drop that sooner rather than later.

Which is the case for any side-goal. Security, code quality, documentation, tooling, test coverage etc. If you only prioritize one thing, other things will be neglected, unless you put explicit checks in place.

Which is why we have people whose job it is to manage these things. And if those managers failed to put checks in place, then we are back at either incompetence or malice of those managers.