Yeah, if you have a habit of confronting people in public when they've been assholes (and make no mistake, he was an asshole who deserves a beating), it probably would be a good idea. Or if you live in an area where these sorts of things regularly occur to you.
What possible outcome could you possibly expect from contronting someone who had done that? Just keep walking man. It sucks, but it's not like you're ever getting an apology.
Because despite the insistence for years, those are not the same thing. Full stop.
My apologies, with the collective chicken little-ing around Firefox I didn't read as clearly as I should have.
Yeah, control should be on the user's end rather than expecting a website or external resource to not change.
Terms of Service (ToS) are regularly not upheld in court, and their terms are worded so poorly that as written, it would not be a difficult case to defeat.
The Firefox specific terms for the precompiled binary link to a more general terms page meant to be additional parts, but the additional parts they link to specify that the additional terms only apply to use of Mozilla "services" (sync, vpn, etc). The concerning shit on the ToS lies in the terms for their services.
It's a clear contradiction of scope, and unfortunately not Firefox's first fuckup of this kind. So far, with a multi decade history, none of these contradictions have been used to fuck over their users.
They already have separate terms for use of the source code. Those are what making forks, and what compiling the source yourself, fall under. They do not make any reference to the services ToS. Use of the source is not effected by any of this so far, on a technical (can the bad shit be removed) and on a legal (are forkers allowed to remove) level.
Hacker News has some deeper discussion about the finer points of the ToS mess.
And apparently Mozilla has clarified that the wording changes in their summary (not the actual ToS) are because California's definition of "sale" of information includes just communicaring it to a third party as part of normal operations support. Thanks again to Hacker News discussion of Mozilla's latest statement.
And again. 100% open source. There is no way for any functionality (including functionalitt that does that) to exist somewhere that people making forks can't modify/remove it.
So... entirely vibes based take. Maybe take some time to step away and come back later.
Spamming a doomerism opinion, when not backed up by anything but feelings, helps nobody. It's an overactive immune response. The fever worse than the illness your body is trying to burn out using it.
I get that it feels like the world is going to shit, and especially when things you thought were trustworthy start doing this, it's a blow. But this shit (repeated as fucking much as you have repeared it) makes the community, and people who need a non-corporate controlled browser, weaker and more vulnerable.
Edit: As rtxn and n0x0n point out, we can adjust settings in Firefox itself and expect them to stay applied, but any settings done within the websites for Mozilla's services could be changed on the Mozilla end at any time. Probably best to have an extra layer to this just in case.
Yes. Yes it can, and you bet your bibby people will be watching to see if Mozilla bypassed those settings, not that they ever have in their multiple decades of existence.
You'll also have to opt out of using Mozilla services like browsing and bookmark sync.
What? What?
Their track record has no instance of them not respecting settings! A track record of multiple decades! The code is fully auditable, so any of those shenanigans would be caught immediately!
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills lately.
We need to be on guard and verify they don't do this shit, but outright expecting it? When Firefox also has a history of absolutely abysmal PR on shit like this, without the follow up of abysmal practices?
It feels like accelerationism. Like people want Firefox to fail, rather than just wanting to be prepared if it does.
What? I've grown up around people in the nuclear industry, and nothing I've ever learned about the function "wastes" water.
Some rambling on how I understand water to be used by reactors
You've got some amount of water in the "dirty loop" exposed to the fissile material, and in the spent fuel storage tanks. Contaminated water is stuck for that use, but that isn't "spending" the water. The water stays contained in those systems. They don't magically delete water volume and need to be refilled.
Outside of that you have your clean loop, which is bog standard "use heat to make steam, steam move turbine, moving turbine make electiricity, steam cools back to water". Again, there's no part of that which somehow makes the water not exist, or not be usable for other purposes.
Not saying you're wrong. Renewables are absolutely preferable, and Texas is prime real estate to maximize their effectiveness. I'm just hung up on the "waste water building reactors" part.
Guessing it was some sort of research about the building process maybe, that I've just missed?
What? Some proof here please. Firefox is 100% open source. You can audit the entire code for this.
It's not like chromium with the pre-compiled binary blob in the middle provided by google.
I doubt implementation of terms will be optional.
You are all up and down these comments repeating this statement.
Why?
How exactly has Mozilla handled changes like this before that leads you to this conclusion? Do you have anything to back this up other than your own dogged insistence?
Surely there must be something I'm missing for you to be so adamant on this point. Please enlighten me, because to my knowledge about how all this works and has worked in the past this just seems like baseless fearmongering to me.
The "/v/s recommended games" wiki is mostly maintained by 4chan users (yuck), but it's been a good source for both mainstream and hidden gems.
SNES, Sega Genesis, GBA
If I have time later I'll edit this with some personal recomendations.