I didn’t think about it, though if that makes it harder to track it (can’t they just check the user agent?) could that actually be good, as the sites will never know exactly how many users they will lose, so might be more hesitant to pull the trigger?
Absolutely. If you think you can switch when chrome will be completely hostile it will be too late.
The reason they are trying those things in chrome is because the market share of Firefox is currently low. They are counting that you won’t have the option to run Firefox anymore, because sites will stop supporting it. Don’t let that happen.
We saw other similar news from China which turned out to be a bunk. I wouldn’t hold my breath. I would love to be wrong though.
That’s how I understand Mastodon’s meant to work. You have your instance like you do a mail server, then you have full control over it.
I always start a session with disabling auto commit (note, I could add it to my settings, but then it would backfire that one time my settings don’t execute, so I’m making it a habit to type it out every time, first thing I connect)
BTW: what kind of genius decides that auto commit should be enabled by default?
The problem I have with it is that all the time it saves me I have to use on reading the code. I probably spend more time on that as once in a while the code it produces is broken in a subtle way.
I see some people swearing by it, which is the opposite of my experience. I suspect that if your coding was copying code from stack overflow then it indeed improved your experience as now this process is streamlined.
It is, but the idea how it works is roughly the same.
Exactly, it is as much serverless as the offering that allowed to host php sites back in the day.
Firefox then?
I would see myself saying that not long ago, but now a 50GB game is nothing unusual.
Still better than my Go experience 2 years ago.
I think it is fair. They even had a good plan, which would work if antitrust laws weren’t rendered toothless. They started with rural areas that seemed to be forgotten by ISPs. They started providing 1 Gbps at an affordable price.
Suddenly existing ISPs that had 1Mbps services could do 1 Gbps too! And they could do it cheaper too, even under the cost to provide the service. They could do it, because they overcharge their customers everywhere else.
They did that in every city Google Fiber entered.
Not only that, they owned communication wells which Google needed access to to run fiber to customer’s homes and were actively blocking from using them.
Google tried different ways, around it and it failed spectacularly, for example: https://gizmodo.com/google-fiber-will-pay-3-8-million-to-fix-roads-marred-1834074398
Title II had special clause which requires owners of existing infrastructure to lease it to competitors (this was excluding by Wheeler when they reclassified it).
The leasing is what is necessary to enable competition.
We won’t get competition if every ISP that wants to enter the market needs to run fiber to every house separately. It is very expensive, and if it wasn’t, it is very impractical. Even Google with its “unlimited” capital wasn’t able to enter the market. Think about that.
It’s mostly because California passed net neutrality law, so it is harder to do it and be compliant there. The politicians also made mistake and did not ban zero rating, which is the current way of doing it (have laughably small data caps and provide unlimited access to affiliated companies)
Because I remember this https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
And it feels like deja vu.