danillonunes

The money Mozilla gets from Google comes with some sort of gentlemen's agreement where they try to avoid disrupting Google's business. It's nice if they diversify their revenue so they can become more independent.

Not surprisingly it's easy for a organization to trust Mozilla Corporation than to trust a random Canadian guy.

Wouldn't that skew the results with a bias towards people who are doing it for money?

So... Where they using semver in the previous versions, never implemented API breaking changes and decided to drop the "1.x" because it was providing no information at all?

Some old twitter users still have animated gif avatars that stop being supported years ago. Maybe their approach is to just stop supporting it for new avatars and grandfathering whoever manage to upload one before.

Someone could make a site that just computes the difference between hacker news and unslop news.

Reminds me the days people would write Micro$oft (usually in Linux vs Windows discourse).

It's funny to think that back in the days we used to think the most evil thing a company could do was charging money for their software. Today we even praise some companies because they are "less evil" and they actually charge money, instead of giving the service for free and mining our data (e.g. Fast Mail vs Gmail; or Kagi vs Google).

> I decided to download Moviemake and buy the Digital Plus pack r so I went to Microsoft.com

That "r" from "Moviemaker" pushed to the end of "and buy the Digital Plus pack" displays the universally shared experience of writing something, then deciding to come back to add something else and fucking up the first sentence.

I've been there too, Bill.

And Twitter used to have free API access. And Facebook Messenger used to have Jabber compatibility. I don't think those companies deserve any trust in regards of promoting them for their open initiatives.

Threads' activity pub gimmick is just a nice to have. It's the salad of the Big Mac. If you're going to eat it anyway, sure, glad it is there, but it doesn't make it deserve a spot in any serious discussion about healthy food alternatives.

Didn't worked so well for the Pokémon show.

It's more like a cultural expectation that business do shady things and the "clown makeup" is a compromise that government found between making those shady things illegal (utopia) and don't intervene at all and let the corporations set their rules (dystopia).

It's like those warnings in cigarettes packages saying they will kill you. I know cigarettes are bad, but the warnings also make me believe there's at least "some" control in how bad they are. Now if I buy one without the warnings, I will worry those in particular are extra-shady and likely to kill me even faster.

Well, if you own an online casino, I guess your moral compass is already so skewed that you simple don't care. On the other hand, if you own an online mom & pop store that sells clothes for puppies, you rationalize that the impact of those manipulations is not that big of a deal. You're not ruining anyone's live by the single act of persuading them to purchase $100 worth of apparel for mr. pancake.

The ultimate image compression algorithm: The txt

Can't they mimic the structure of legit content to get passed on the whitelist?