Windows uses AI to determine what’s best for you. GNOME just decides it generally in advance.

What do you mean by “improving”? This alarming warning appears because Firefox requires permissions. Let us look at the permissions listed there:

1. “User device access”. From the docs, I’d say the browser needs it for rendering?
2. “Download folder read/write access”. This one is obvious - the files you download with your browser go there.
3. “Can access some specific files”. This one, I’ll admit, is a bit cryptic - what files does it need to access? But this one is on Flatpak for making the permission so general.

App permissions should not be about “this app cannot be trusted because it asks for scary scary permissions”. They should be about “take a look at the list of permissions the app requests and determine whether or not it make sense for such an app to need such permissions”.

Nearly every app should have a warning

No. If you put a warning on every app (except for the most trivial ones that don’t actually do anything useful) then the warnings mean nothing. The become something more than ass-covering legal(ish) BS.

No. They’ll integrate with Threads.

My headcanon is that they are still there, forced to watch as Musk personally “improves” their code.

Depends on what you mean by that:

1. A Russian/Chinese judge ordering the disclosure of data about a Spanish citizen? Then no, because judges from one country should hold no jurisdiction over citizens of other countries (unless it’s about things these citizens did in the judge’s country - which is not the hypothetical case here)
2. A Russian/Chinese born person who became a judge in Spain? Then yes, because the judge’s ethnicity should not be a factor on whether or not their authority is respected.
3. A Russian/Chinese judge ordering the disclosure of data about a Russian/Chinese (respectively) citizen? Then this depends on whether or not Proton Mail is willing to stop doing business in Russia/China (again - respectively). Though I’m not sure if that will save them, since it may still be possible, even after the cut ties with that country, for the government to go after them using international treaties.

At any rate, my point is that the decision of whether you obey the law or protect your users should be about the country as a whole, not about any specific judge employed by it. Choosing to obey some judges of the country while ignoring the warrants signed by other judges of the same country is just stupid. The country will not trust you to respect their authority and will not permit you to do business there, while the users will not trust you to keep your promise to protect them and won’t use your service.

Does it matter? He’s still a judge with a judge’s authority. If their policy is to obey the law then the political views of the judge don’t change the fact that his order was lawful.

At least he didn’t try with a cylinder.

The only way to get a passing mark in that question is to derail it into a philosophical discussion about the meaning of money and questioning whether or not it is really necessary to make it.

Turns out he didn’t even need me, he let slip he only needed someone with the last name starting with “R” so he was able to easily just piss test someone else.

Wait what? What kind of a rule is that?

I think the problem with OOP is something you can see whenever legislation is linked with prestige (it happens a lot in real life). The number of good possible rules is quite limited, and the number of people who want to make a name for themselves by championing them seems to be infinite. If you can’t find a good rule to claim as your own, you have to pick a bad rule and try to gaslight people into thinking it’s a necessary and beneficial. Enough people do that, and we end up with modern OOP.

Just because it’s a bad idea doesn’t mean Musk won’t do it. On the contrary.

Which one should have taken the other to kourt?

I think you’ve missed the “that often”. Civilized countries want the donor’s body to recover from the donation. “Civilized” countries allow shorter recovery periods because the “donor” needs the money from the “donation” to pay rent.

Had to look it up (my county doesn’t have them), and two things seem weird to me:

1. Why is it text only? Wouldn’t adding a picture of the abducted child make it much more effective?
2. Since it can take several hours for the alert to be issued, it doesn’t really require any immediate action from the people who receive it - it makes no sense to use a special emergency protocol to distribute it.

If you use Edge than you probably use Windows, which means that Microsoft can already mine your data. I guess it’s better to have your data mined by only Microsoft than to have it mined by both Microsoft and Google?

I wanted more workspaces, so I decided that ~ is 0, - is 11, = is 12 and backspace is 13.

So 2025 will finally be the year of the Linux desktop?

Natural selection