You don’t need control of the House to work on bills that you don’t even intend to pass until the next session of congress, though. There’s nothing stopping the Republicans, Democrats, or even average citizens from writing bills right now that are intended to be voted on by future sessions of congress.

And the House of Reps voting on the bill next week is also meaningless, because the bill has a 0% chance of passing this session with the democrats in control of the senate - and the House of Reps would then have to pass it again once a new session starts. Which, they probably will - but that doesn’t make the vote next week somehow less meaningless. So the headline is pure clickbait: Congress isn’t about to “gift” Trump anything. The gifts will come next year.

There was this game of dots I played against my 12 year old niece. The game was looking pretty even with two obvious large snakes building up - she ended up making the move that opened up the first, smaller snake for myself, hoping to force me to open the larger one for her. But I purposely didn’t claim the ending squares in the first snake, which let me avoid opening up the second for her. So she was forced to then open up the second snake to me, letting me claim basically the entire board.

The second image explains it better - with the black lines as the setup she left me with, the usual strategy would be on the left, while I played as on the right, with the blue line as my last move.

Notes in Google Keep will sync between mobile and web

Mozilla isn’t doing anything to Firefox. The Anonym purchase you linked to was literally to acquire a technology they developed which would, if implemented web-wide, end the dystopian nightmare of privacy invasion that is the current paradigm where a few dozen large companies track everything everyone does on the internet all the time. “Privacy preserving” isn’t just a buzzword in that article - privacy is actually preserved, and the companies involved (including Mozilla) learn nothing at all about you - not your name, not an “anonymous” identifier, not your behavior, nothing. Moreso, Anonym didn’t just create this technology, the entire company was purpose-founded to create this technology.

There’s a lot of misinformation floating around about Mozilla in particular at the moment. Very little of the animosity they receive is truly deserved once you dig past the narrative and find out what Mozilla’s actually up to, and why.

By default they do block quite a bit. The “Standard” tracking protection option in their Settings page says it blocks Social media trackers, Cross-site cookies in all windows, tracking content in private windows, cryptominers, and fingerprinters. They have a strict option with a disclaimer that it may break some sites or content that does a bit more.

So they’re already blocking as much as they reasonably can without affecting legitimate functionality, and they have an option to block even more.

As for “Why offer them anything?”, my guess is pragmatism. They’re a lot more likely to succeed if they propose a system where the users give up nothing but companies can thrive anyways, vs. a system where the users give up nothing and the companies in charge of everything just burn to the ground and die.

I notably don’t have a strong opinion on whether or not I think they’ll succeed with this feature. I think their intentions are pure, though, and that it legitimately offers no privacy risk to users at all. I think the best chance it has is something like government mandates. Maybe there’s also a future where they somehow get Google on board for PR reasons or something. I wish them the best of luck.

I look at it as a pragmatic attempt to work within the system we have to shift the internet away from its current nightmare dystopia of user tracking and information selling, and toward a system where all parties can be reasonably happy, with companies being able to receive aggregate anonymous data that helps them operate efficiently, without compromising even a tiny bit on user privacy.

Editing to actually respond to your question about who Firefox is built for: Definitely the user. But users don’t exist in a vacuum. Mozilla can and does consider the entire ecosystem their products and users exist within, and can take steps to make that ecosystem, the internet, a better place for users. The best part is that their actions often make the internet better for everyone - not just Firefox users.

Cross-posting my comment from the post you cross-posted (and possibly created your account just to post?)

After reading about the actual feature (more), this seems like an absolutely gigantic non-issue. Like most anti-Mozilla stories end up being.

The whole thing is an experimental feature intended to replace the current privacy nightmare that is cross-site tracking cookies. As-implemented it’s a way for advertisers to figure out things like “How many people who went to our site and purchased this product saw this ad we placed on another site?”, but done in such a way that neither the website with the ad, nor the website with the product, nor Mozilla itself knows what any one specific user was doing.

The only thing I looked for but could not find an answer on one way or the other is if Mozilla is making any sort of profit from this system. I would guess no but actually have no idea.

There are definitely things that can be said about this feature, like that users with pre-existing installs should have been asked to have it turned on (for optics alone, apparently), or that its mission of replacing tracking cookies is unlikely to succeed. But the feature itself has virtually no privacy consequences whatsoever for anybody.

I’m absolutely convinced there’s a coordinated anti-Firefox astroturfing campaign going on lately.

Or a terrible one!

To anyone reading, don’t do this. The real toggle is here.

After reading about the actual feature (more), this seems like an absolutely gigantic non-issue. Like most anti-Mozilla stories end up being.

The whole thing is an experimental feature intended to replace the current privacy nightmare that is cross-site tracking cookies. As-implemented it’s a way for advertisers to figure out things like “How many people who went to our site and purchased this product saw this ad we placed on another site?”, but done in such a way that neither the website with the ad, nor the website with the product, nor Mozilla itself knows what any one specific user was doing.

The only thing I looked for but could not find an answer on one way or the other is if Mozilla is making any sort of profit from this system. I would guess no but actually have no idea.

There are definitely things that can be said about this feature, like “Fuck ad companies, it should be off by default” (my personal take), or “It’s a pointless feature that’s doomed to failure because it’ll never provide ad companies with information as valuable as tracking cookies, so it’ll never succeed in its goal to replace tracking cookies” (also my take). But the feature itself has virtually no privacy consequences whatsoever for anybody.

I’m absolutely convinced there’s a coordinated anti-Firefox astroturfing campaign going on lately.

Maybe the museum exhibit was about his nephew?

Completely ignoring your “short enough to finish in a day” instruction, try out Worm

Even if they do, which they probably will, it still works out as a net positive progressive policy. You can view it like an added 3% sales tax for everyone, including corporations and out-of-state tourists. Everyone gets the exact same rebate on this sales tax at the end of the year - so those who spend the least, the poorest, benefit the most because they paid the least of that tax. Anyone who spends less than the state average (which should be the vast majority of regular people) should see a net benefit. And for those spending above average it’ll just be a 3% tax on everything they spend above that statewide average. Kinda just straight-up small scale wealth redistribution.

That’s not how it works - the $1600 is an estimate for what each individual would receive. The total amount collected each year is split evenly between every resident in the state, how much ever it happens to be. So anyone spending less at the taxed companies than the average amount for Oregon will come out ahead. Worth noting that since it targets total sales in Oregon, that tax seemingly applies to corporate-to-corporate sales too, meaning the vast majority of regular people will end up below the average, with a net benefit.

Not so sure it’s correct to say he’s already in the “lame duck” phase the article mentions where most presidents stuff their clemency grants. It might be true in a literal sense, but public perception is presumably the main reason presidents wait until that period for this sort of thing, and I’m sure he’s still very conscious of how his own PR could affect Harris’s campaign.

Meanwhile I avoided playing because I wanted to wait until it was out of early access and had its full release… Seems like I’ll either never get that, or by the time I do, the game will already be dead

I’ve gotta wonder if the charge is being pushed by someone who opposes the law being talked about in the video, who wants it first application to be in a case so ridiculous it’ll create mass public opposition to it or something. That’s the only scenario I can think of where an otherwise functioning adult may make a decision that poor.

Florida is already a swing state and has been for ages. 2 of the last 4 elections it went blue.

It wasn’t a freak accident either. There’s no sane way to look at the last 70 years of presidential elections in Florida and determine it’s been a safe long-term bet for either party in that timeframe. It usually votes for the winner, but when it hasn’t, that loser has always (in modern times) been a Republican - so the state is at least much more electorally important to them than it is to Democrats. It’s very much always been a leans-Republican swing state.

Could be that for sure - like I game a bit every day, but if I was doing this same project, all of my screenshots from the past three weeks would have been from Crash Bandicoot 4 - and the three weeks before that would all be from Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 1+2. I basically just beat a level a day. If other people were chiming in every day maybe I’d mix it up.

It could also be self-selection bias - like, I would never do a project like this because I know it would be super repetitive. Maybe they were willing to do it because they already played a hyper-varied selection?

You have more variety in the games you play than I have in the foods I eat

How many of these 54 have been unique? What are you doing that you play a different game almost every day?