marc_abonce

Yes, there's a massive difference between a government's power and a common citizen's power, both in scope and in the responsibility that this difference in power conveys.

Using your example, a homeowner with a camera is indeed surveying but it's not mass surveillance. (Unless they actually hacked into other people's cameras, but that would be a completely different example and would in fact lead us back to the conversation about government or corporate responsibility over those other cameras.)

There's nothing hypocritical in pointing out this difference and expecting more restraint on a democratic government that's supposed to serve the common people.

Don't get me wrong, I hate internet mobs too but it's incorrect to assume that they are equivalent to actual governments. They're a separate problem that needs to be handled in its own terms.

One thing we can do to slightly mitigate this as devs is to use Firefox ourselves while working on our job's front-end. Even if the company doesn't prioritize Firefox, we can make sure it works in the browser while doing our normal job.

This is what I've been "accidentally" doing throughout my career, not even thinking about helping Firefox support but just because I actually prefer to use Firefox myself.

And it's not even extra work because nowadays the feature support in Firefox and Chrome is nearly identical and all the mainstream front-end libraries already support both browsers. In fact, I only remember 2 times in the last 5 years when I found bugs caused by inconsistent browser behaviours and both were quick and easy to amend in the same PR; no ticket nor discussions on prioritization were even needed.

How does copyright work with recorded music?

The article mentions that Charlie (Bird) Parker's music is now public domain in most of the world (life + 70 years), but most of his records are collaborations with other artists like Dizzy Gillespie who died much later, less than 50 years ago. I also wonder if that even matters if the records are owned by corporations.

In those cases, how would I know if a record is public domain or not?

> The TH3 test harness is a set of proprietary tests [...]

> The dbsqlfuzz engine is a proprietary fuzz tester.

It's interesting that an open-source (actually public domain) software uses some proprietary tests. It never occurred to me that this was a possibility, though in retrospective it's obviously possible as long as the tests are not part of the release.

Could this be an alternative business model for "almost-open-source" projects? Similar to open-core, but in this case the project would easy to copy (open features), hard to modify (closed tests).

Case in point: @testing-library (the JS one for React, Vue, etc.)

Besides, this type of overly generic names makes it harder to search relevant stuff, which makes them more annoying to me than silly names.

Intuitively, I agree with the thesis. But the example for Spanish confuses me. One of the illustrations says:

"Absence of negatively biased mental verbs in English slows down the development of Theory of Mind. Children acquiring Spanish (which has verbs indicating false belief) have better performance in false-belief tasks."

But as a Spanish speaker I don't know what verbs is this referring to. On top of my head I can only think of the word "disbelieve" which doesn't have an exact, single word translation, but that's the opposite of what the quote seems to imply. Other verbs like deceive, doubt, misunderstand or imagine do have matching translations in both languages. What am I missing here?

I'm glad that the "new" (post-Flash) version keeps some of the sarcasm from before, even if he toned down the level of spite that he had against some subgenres.

There's too many websites trying to be neutral and respectful, which is great, but humanity also needs subjective, opinionated rants about music. After all, music wouldn't even exist without the emotions that it inspires, an that includes negative emotions from boredom to mockery. Also, that's what makes this website fun to read in the first place.

I assume that they mean sending either a direct Linkedin message or an email to the recruiter or hiring manager.

When I was recently unemployed I started doing that after months of getting ignored by most companies and, in my experience, the only difference is that I got far more acks ("Hi! Sure, I'll take a look at your resume and reach out!") but I got a similar rate of applications-to-interview compared to applying through the official platforms.