bscphil

75 ms·

781.
by bscphil 5y ago
People have different preferences, but moreover people have different needs. Configuration shouldn't be thought of as optional. If, as the parent comment says, settings are design failures, they arise from the fact that it's not p
782.
by bscphil 5y ago
"providing better products or services" and "causing competitor companies to go out of business" are related, though, not two wholly separate ways of doing business. If you provide a better product or service at a better
783.
by bscphil 5y ago
Or, more charitably (?), marketing.
784.
by bscphil 5y ago
How much RAM do you have? How much RAM does Firefox use, e.g. after you've had it open for several days?
785.
by bscphil 5y ago
> I don't need customizability Configuration isn't for you. It's for other people. Configuration is the part of a program that performs the function of making it useful for more than one person. It is the necessary glue th
786.
by bscphil 5y ago
My understanding is that the RAM per tab metric drops as you have more tabs. Firefox is more willing to cache stuff when you have only 4 tabs open, so that's not a great metric. Plus you have to consider the base RAM use of the browser
787.
by bscphil 5y ago
A reasonable web browsing experience is no longer possible (on any browser) on machines with 8 GB of RAM or less. Horrific, but true. Either get more RAM, use something like Total Suspender to suspend inactive tabs to disk, or limit yoursel
788.
by bscphil 5y ago
> the fact that a smaller number of people would run into the bug doesn't magically make it not-a-bug I agree with you with respect to ftp, but I have to disagree with this. A site might link to a file with a gopher:// url
789.
by bscphil 5y ago
> Well, for a start, they can't say 'we quit for the week at 5 on a Friday' in your global timezone scheme - they have to say 'at 04:00 on a Friday'. Just for clarification, when I said "5 on a Friday",
790.
by bscphil 5y ago
Likewise, I don't use fish for exactly this reason. It seems extremely fine tuned to meet exactly the preferences of its developers, and eschews all further configurability. The Clippy comparison is brilliant, by the way, pretty much s
791.
by bscphil 5y ago
No, fish actually has super fancy autocompletion with suggestions, which is even more complicated and visually messy than the zsh defaults. Furthermore, none of it can be disabled in fish. (This is why I don't use fish, fwiw.) On the o
792.
by bscphil 5y ago
> So Friday-Saturday is a workday in Hawaii, but not in Australia. If you ask someone to schedule a meeting Saturday afternoon, will they think that's fine, or think you're crazy? Depends if they're Hawaiian or Australian.
793.
by bscphil 5y ago
No opinion on Purina, but it's shocking to me how widely understood it is that medical professionals are bought and sold, and nobody seems concerned about this or worried about whether it violates professional ethics standards. Every d
794.
by bscphil 5y ago
You're right, the case as given in the essay is a pretty massive stretch from anything reasonable. What I was hoping to show was that even if you take it as straightforwardly as possible, it fails on its own terms. A universal time use
795.
by bscphil 5y ago
The argument is utter nonsense, so much so that I've often wondered if it was even intended to be plausible and not a (failed) joke. Neither part of it works. Take the argument that it is currently easy to tell whether or not it&#x27
796.
by bscphil 5y ago
Thanks for letting me know; it looks fine on desktop. Probably the site predates responsive design standards.
797.
by bscphil 5y ago
Yeah, fair enough, I can see it being hard for most people to bin Nestle (though not Sinclair?). My response to Nestle was a "me personally" thing which probably doesn't apply to most other people - I don't really buy br
798.
by bscphil 5y ago
> companies I wish I could easily boycott, Nestle comes to mind, and then there is Sinclair Sorry if this question seems presumptive, but isn't it actually extremely easy to boycott both of these companies? I would be surprised to l
799.
by bscphil 5y ago
I'm really not sure what's even being complained about on the original site. It's quite readable (only tested with an ad blocker) and really the only annoying thing is the "accept our cookies" footer. In fact it&#x2
800.
by bscphil 5y ago
I understand your confusion, because it took me a minute to think about it and confirm that this doesn't work. It might be surprising that even a machine with complete information and infinite compute power couldn't pick out the n
801.
by bscphil 5y ago
Unless I missed them, a bunch of the demos aren't linked directly in the page. Here's Bad Apple: https://www.bryanbraun.com/checkboxland/docs/demos/bad-apple...
802.
by bscphil 5y ago
Hmm. I haven't made a claim that they should not or must not do this. Your argument amounts to the claim that they must do these things because they have no other choice. I have ... not a lot to say on this point, honestly. What you
803.
by bscphil 5y ago
It would be slightly more accurate to say that you receive a new copyright in any new material in the work, not that your copyright is extended on the old material. Under U.S. law at least, a significant alteration of a work results in a de
804.
by bscphil 5y ago
The United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_renewal_in_the_Unite... Moreover, under United States law, new editions of a preexisting work are considered "derivative works" and in these cases
805.
by bscphil 5y ago
For the purposes of this comment, user-hostility means decisions that have negative utility for Firefox users as a whole, while benefiting Mozilla in some way (usually financial). * There is disgusting clickbait and spam on the new tab page
806.
by bscphil 5y ago
Hmm. You're right that they are trying to do more than just that, they're trying to make a browser with an "off by default" policy for anything potentially privacy impacting. Personally, I haven't done any more th
807.
by bscphil 5y ago
As far as I can tell, they do not. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that their Firefox package is just taken directly from Ubuntu, and they only apply a single theming option on top of that: https://github.com/pop-os
808.
by bscphil 5y ago
They do not. You can check their build files yourself here: https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-packages/tree/packages... Indeed, it would be rather surprising if they did, as I'm an Arch user as well
809.
by bscphil 5y ago
Maybe so, but you'd still expect anything capable of removing a good bit of the blue light to still show a significant improvement in sleep quality, even if the effect was not as large as with "complete" blue light removal. I
810.
by bscphil 5y ago
> If you’re just looking for a version of Firefox without the user-hostile parts LibreWolf seems like an attempt at this: https://librewolf-community.gitlab.io/

More ›