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.
wizardbeard
joined 2 years ago
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.
Why wouldn't they be optional? Every other change like this has been before.
Yes, they allow full avoidance of any potential data collection through the browser, if they remove the collection features.
Mozilla would need to change their licensing terms to prevent forks from being able to remove things like that, and forks could just use the last version of the code before the license change and just backport new features.
Also Firefox is fully open source, unlike chromium which relies on a closed source binary blob in the middle. Some chromium forks have replaced the binary blob with open source code, but the default is for chromium forks to have a nice chunk in them controlled by google that no one can deeply inveatigate what it does. Firefox does not have this issue.
Mozilla can't hide any potential data collection in Firefox due to the full open source nature (unlike chrome forks). They also can't stop fork devs from stripping out any data collection functions. And as of today, they have not introduced any data collection that is not supremely anonymized, and they have not introduced any data collection that cannot be opted out of through the browser settings (and about:config).
Under the end of the readme, the section labelled releases.
I get that this is mildlyinfuriating, but a single instance of maybe an inch of misalignment in an install like that is damn impressive.
Clinton was impeached for, at best, getting busy with a staff member. Maybe you have a different opinion, but I have a hard time believing things would have gotten as far as it did publicly if what truly happened was just some banal impropriety. Oh my, he got a blowjob from a college aged staffer? I doubt there are many presidents who haven't. Why did this get far enough for immediate public knowledge?
Biden... before AI image generation took off, the magats made tons of compilations of pictures and videos of him making young girls obviously uncomfortable. Too much to just write off as coincidence or bad timing of photos. The bathing with his 16 year old daughter was from public statements made by the alleged victim, stating that it had happened.
Beyond all that, I have to get this off my chest: Y'all motherfuckers believe Epstein island is real (and it was), but you draw the line of believability at: "There's no possible way the global elite could have sex trafficking infrastructure in the area surrounding a common meeting location. They would never use such obvious code language around pizza and pizza toppings. You know, the code language that can be verified to have been used by pedos on 4chan in the clearnet and that's also been noted by darknet reseachers."
I'm not saying the trumptards were 3000% correct to target a specific business owner, or it was in any way OK to condemn by public opinion without any true investigation.
But you are certifiably insane if you somehow don't think that the elite have human trafficking services including heinously illegal and horrendous shit available at practically every port of call. That's basic fucking kompromat generation tactics that most intel orgs the world over would be chomping at the bit to support. Fuckers.
I know I keep my tinfoil hat nice and shiny on this shit, but of all the things to push back against, you choose "The fellows at the top are likely rapists"?
Hi, I'm ~~Nicole~~ wizardbeard! I'm a ~~proud~~ aromatic ~~Polish~~ Abyssal ~~girl~~ tube sock with googly eyes from ~~Toronto~~ the space between your walls (~~29 y/o~~ 50 ft)
I’m currently taking the ~~pre-health sciences program at George Brown College~~ socks from your dryer hoping to ~~get into the medical field~~ find a broodmother for the spawn that will form the ranks of my holy army someday!
You can't add me on Friendica. It's far too late for that. Far far too late for anyone to do anything to stop this.
Your socks may be returned to you but they may never be the same.
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?