norenh

As someone who worked with Unix/Linux and command line arguments for 30 years and still "abuse" cat like the documentation, I regularly hear this complaint.

Yes, "cmd <file" is more efficient for the computer but not for the reader in many cases. I read from left to the right and the pipeline might be long or "cmd" might have plenty of arguments (or both). Having "cat file | cmd" immediately gives me the context for what I am working with and corresponds well with "take this file, do this, then that, etc" with it) and makes it easier for me to grok what is happening (the first operation will have some kind of input from stdin). Without that, the context starts with the (first) operation like in the sentence "do this operation, on this file (,then this, etc)". I might not be familiar with it or knowing the arguments it expects.

At least for me, the first variant comes more naturally and is quicker to follow (in most cases), so unless it is performance sensitive that is what I end up with (and cat is insanely fast for most cases).

Could you name another browser with enough backing to be able to keep up?

Besides Google Chrome (controlled and backed by the surveillance overlords) and Safari (Kept alive by Apple cultists) I see very few free alternatives that can stand on their own. The other options are various niche browsers that leech on one of these three that might have a few changes here and there but lacks the real capability to stand on their own legs.

What I mean with capacity to stand on their own legs is that the group behind it should;

  * Be able to be a part in development of web-standards

  * Be able to keep up with ever changing web-standards

  * Be able to suggest and develop new web-standards if needed

  * Be able to maintain a modern web-browser

This needs a relevant user-base, active developers and standard-committee members as well as infrastructure and cash-flow to maintain it for expected stuff like add-ons and various other bits needed (on-line checks, certificate handling, etc) that is expected from a modern browser.

I am worried about Mozilla but I see no reason to declare that the end is nigh just yet.

Firefox is still very much relevant to me, although I use mainly linux-distros and do not normally use webpages as applications (I browse with javascript disabled, unless there are specific needs). I would love to see some more options out there, but alternatives to Firefox are currently not on the horizon for me.

> NAT was a necessity when it was being introduced, so I don't understand the complaints. Sure it's annoying, but what was the alternative?

IPv6

Thanks! This info is always nice to have when setting up firewalls. Every application should come with a list of connections made, what the purpose is and what the consequences are if you disallow it.

And what will GPT info tools learn from, once the public curated sources are gone?

One reason is that tuta does not require you to have any other connection to create and account. Protonmail require a second mail, phone or possibly some kind of payment if I recall correctly (for verification?) that could be linked from your account in theory.

Without having a good anonymous starting point, protonmail does not let you get that starting point, at least the last time I tired (maybe a year ago).

100% this. As a consumer that tries to do active choices the current model breaks any kind of active choices to support or not support an artist, except nudging it somewhere in the margins. If your pot is only going to work you interact with, you can suddenly make an impact for smaller artists.

The counterargument I see is that subscribers who listen to lots of different artists will have a smaller share of the pot for each artist than someone who listen to just one artist. But I see the inequality here is not as bad as the other option where almost all my subscriber fee now goes to a few mainstream artists I probably never listened to. I also bet a lot of smaller artists would benefit more with a per-user pot, instead of always getting a minuscule share from the global pot.

I see only issues abandoning copyright (for example it is the protection that makes Open Source Licenses work), but we should definitely discuss the length of it. The current trend of longer and longer periods of copyright protection can be questioned and I wonder if society would not benefit with a severely cut copyright period. Berne convention and other international treaties makes it hard to change below Life + 50 years, but I see no reason all the right incentives for individuals and companies would be there if you cut it to just 20-30 years after publication. The benefits of new derivative works, access and sharing knowledge and other areas would be great for society as a whole.

The moral right of claiming ownership to a work should still be protected forever.

While technically true, that DDR5 comes with "on-die ECC", it is only because the memory is so unreliable it will not work properly without it. However, even then, it is not the same as true ECC that have a extra data correction chip on the memory module and also protects against send errors to the CPU.

Depends on your needs, but it is fairly simple to buy a domain-name and manage the dns-servers and hosting of web-server (and I guess e-mail) yourself. If you have a A/AAAA-record in your top TLD pointing directly to your nameservers you do not depend on anyone but the root servers and TLD-servers to be available (in regards to DNS). Now, you just need to find a TLD that is not managed by one of the big ones, but that should be fairly easy.

It is small, simple and does the job. Also seems to have good documentation. What is there not to love about that?

Do you know something better that fills the same gap?