It could affect those things. But like I agreed with before, it should be handled carefully and this is a big reason. I distinguish simply between Facebook for example and ma’s blog. One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.

If the law outlawed the online exchange of ideas, I too would be among its biggest opponents but that is probably a strawman.

As far as me parenting? Sure. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure I was fit either, but I did my best.

I agree that it is unprecedented and should be handled thoughtfully. Nevertheless a corporate website is not a social construct. There is no talk of banning socialization. Maybe you thought they meant social networks in the traditional sense (social group connections) but they are referring to websites. So cigarettes is a perfectly suitable analogy, which is why I can understand your dismissal.

So let me just clarify. Norwegian parents are bad, even though kids here are doing pretty well when compared globally. Regulating how young people interact with the world never works and is bad. So, underage drinking should be allowed, smoking, driving at 8, no age of consent? And parents can just talk to their kids to fix all the problems that happen, including psychological manipulation for financial gain? And anybody that has issues or is taken advantage of just has bad parents? Those who think society has a role to play are just virtue signaling?

Interesting. Not going to debate much further with you, but I’m always a bit envious when I run into other parents who claim they have 100% control over their kids. I don’t. My child is grown now, but I absolutely did not. They were their own person, that no matter how much I talked to them had their own life and struggles.

And prohibition does work in some cases. See, cigarettes. Smoking has been in the fall for a long time especially among the young.

But I’m glad your kid will never have any problems ever and if they do that you admit it could have been solved by you talking to them.

We don’t have to accept corporations selling ads that target young people and using algorithms to take advantage of them.

And Norwegian parents are doing what many are doing; caring for their kids to the best of their abilities. That oil money has provided good social services and these teens do have access to healthcare, including mental, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t teenagers still. They necessarily require some independence. That’s growing up, so you can’t just parent around every problem. Hence restricting some things, like cigarettes and alcohol for example.

I don’t see this much differently. It is a hazardous drug that warrants some consideration. Enforcement is fraught but that doesn’t mean we should just sit on our hands and accept it as is.

That wasn’t clear to me, but it is a pretty funny point.

Unless it doesn’t make money.

Light switch rave!

Well, there are many of us that do care about software freedom. If you don’t, I hope your software is as good as your understanding of open source.

Not anything sufficiently modern. Salted passwords should be exceedingly difficult to reverse.

Hey, if they choose to wrap their comments in completely inane reasoning they should be allowed to.

This indicative mood is something I would send back for correction or correct myself where I am the maintainer. However I understand that although this is pretty consistent through FOSS, it is not a settled matter especially in corpo-land. Most important is that it is consistent within a project. See many differing views here on Stackoverflow, noting the most popular answer though is imperative as Linus requests.

And here it is in the kernel contribution documentation.

Simple example:

• bad: Added foo interface.
• good: Add foo interface.

So the commit says what applying the patch will do, not what you worked on.

Oh I wasn’t even disagreeing with you. I was just saying that your example may undercut your point. I use extreme examples too, but it only works well when the analogy is solid throughout. In this case I don’t think they are as comparable as you do. That’s all.

The gulf of difference kind of undercuts your point in this case. One is undoubtedly immoral and illegal. And it doesn’t change that part of the answer why somebody would have either is because they want that, which says nothing about it being a good thing.

Unless one shares a computer user with somebody, the privacy concerns of local history are nothing compared to connected features. There are many reasons people might use a browser other than chrome. Everybody disabling history is a strange assumption.

I feel like I’m reading a different article than everyone else. The comments made me think the article would be adding advertisements, but it seems to be trying to find a way forward to facilitate advertisements while maintaining privacy.

Without technical details I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I know lemmy is largely “Mozilla bad”, but I’m just not sure the comments are in line with the proposal.

Fair enough. If you do run MacOS, I highly recommend UTM for running guest OS’s. It uses qemu and I have really found it to be even nicer than parallels.

If you don’t plan to upgrade even after security updates end, what’s keeping you there now?

I didn’t say the source of failure. I said a source of ambiguity. And having also been in the industry for decades, I have encountered it many times, where a junior programmer or somebody new to a project read some documentation and assumed a behavior which in fact did not match the current implementation. So you may have been fortunate, but your experience is certainly not ubiquitous.

With respect to variable names, I’d suggest those too should absolutely be updated too if the name is given in a way that adds ambiguity.

I’m not saying comments are bad; rather that bad comments are bad, and sometimes worse than no comment.

And your colleagues are probably correct with respect to this sort of «what it does» commenting. That can be counterproductive because if the code changes and the comment isn’t updated accordingly, it can be ambiguous. Better have the code be the singular source of truth. However, «why it does it» comments are another story and usually accepted by most as helpful.