3 ms·
Usually I agree with your moderation, even when it has been against me, but this one is either particularly questionable or just poorly worded. It was a partia
by Nadya 8y ago
Usually I agree with your moderation, even when it has been against me, but this one is either particularly questionable or just poorly worded.
It was a partial copy/paste from this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18197886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18197886 which is titled "What happened to my Live Bookmarks?" straight from the horse's mouth. That thread was posted at an awkward time last night and didn't get any discussion. In fact, I was the only one to respond. I try to be transparent when I re-use things I have previously posted, even if I do end up making some pretty significant modifications.
The blog linked in this thread is about the removal of this functionality starting in Firefox 64 from a contributor to Mozilla (Gijs) and a brief history of what the feature actually was and the justifications for removing it. I expand upon this feature removal by speaking of previous feature removals that have occurred over the years. I seem to have an uncanny ability of being part of the 0.01% of users who use these poorly (and often never) advertised features. While it is not directly related to the Live Bookmarks it is in relation to Firefox and Feature Removal.
The discussion about vulnerabilities of using FF 36 that branched off is admittingly off topic - so if you're pruning this thread as a way to kill that conversation then it's less an action of questionable moderation and more a case of poorly worded moderation.
- dang 8y agoOk, point taken. And that's not a duplicate comment.