I had to take a step back before I got the reference :)

Oh unfortunately not. I only created the gear for this one. My father in law worked on the sewing machine.

this is not cancellation. This is Google taking a step back, and regroup to attack back.

I have been with Firefox, since it’s inception. Never left it. And it never let me down.

Is the name any chance Turkish? Because it means “to grow/ growing” in Turkish.

I can’t answer any of these. I don’t have the knowledge. I am not using Firefox on mobile, only on desktop. (opera mobile user)

However what I can say is, you need to make compromises on some of your convenience to free yourself from a user hostile company’s software, or forks of it which strongholds you to their whims. Silicon Valley is trying to profit against your best interests.

Also as a long running Firefox user, I don’t get these incompatibilities at all. And if you start using Firefox and increase the usage numbers the incompatible sites would need to reconsider their stance.

I strongly suggest against using any Chromium forks. I already explained why in another post. I’ll put the link to that here: https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.ml/t/282011/Why-do-most-browser-companies-opt-for-a-Chromium-Blink-base#entry-comment-1301554

Thank you. I edited the main body too.

I never used Chrome. happy user of Firefox since it’s conception.

I still have trouble understanding the distinction between “a human consuming different artists, and replicating the style” vs “software consuming different artists, and replicating the style”.

Elegoo Neptune 3 Pro or Neptune 4 Pro are also great printers to consider.

For now spec calls “holdbacks”, which are designed for this purpose. Attestors will fail randomly for a set percentage of the requests so this can’t be used as a whitelist. Surely this “holdbacks” will either be not implemented or dropped in no time by attestors.

I rechecked the current spec. It does not fully cover what a user agent can ask to the attestor ( “content binding” to be defined). So we can assume this attestation spec is defined at the attestor.

Of course this does not mean attestor can not have different profiles to attest for.

So your comment even though is possible, just not defined yet. Which we can - I believe - rightfully assume will be in the final spec or implementation.

I am using Firefox too. However I also consume lots and lots of general purpose websites which in time probably become not consumable if you are not compliant. Which in turn either render FF not usable, or adopt the unfortunate standards.

Here it is. Another nail in the open web coffin.

Block users all you want, but don’t expect me to “attest my hardware and software” from a 3rd party. Let alone make this a standard and think about leaving the keys to parties which are probably “themselves” only.

How on earth the expectation can be giving authority to third parties to set my hardware and software to be validated so they attest to an arbitrary standard which I will never have control over?

See the current SSL certificate authorities mess. I have to pay to a third party to asure my clients that my server can securely communicate with them. Now they are doing this to clients with a more strict manner.

I am an Elegoo user. Mars 2 Pro, Saturn 8k and a Neptune 3 plus. My anecdotal limited set of experience they just work.

So we don’t need that old Fat beardie anymore!