Maybe somewhere in the original comment it would have been fair to mention you can barely see the house in the original photo. This is actually a hilarious complaint
That cannot be a valid excuse. Other than adding extra windows to the clearly visible wall, it's obvious that model perfectly capable to "see" the house. It just cannot "believe" that there can be a big empty wall on a garden house.
To me, happiness is related more to gratitude than to intelligence. You could have very little and be happy and you can have a lot (money, friends, autonomy) and be miserable. The modern world has a lot of stressors but also a lot of things to be thankful for. It's the best time to be alive for humans so far.
I see how having multiple Postgres compute nodes scales up reads, which is great! Does separating the "write" functionality into the Pagekeepers service allow writes to scale as well?
Seems like there's no upper limit for scaling up reads, just wondering how this architecture affects write throughput. Would love to hear more!
Yes you can’t infinitely scale writes. You can make your storage bandwidth infinit but you are still limited to the how much Postgres WAL one instance can pump into the storage.
I think we can do a lot of good things here over time and have plenty ideas. But for now it’s a single writer system. Good news is that there is so much open source tech around Postgres that it might not be a gargantuan task in the future
That headline is certainly inflammatory, but I don't think the actual content of the post is nearly as bad - they're not suggesting web browser start flagging/blocking sites or anything similar like it initially made me think.
They're simply suggesting further transparency in algorithmic suggestions and research be conducted. You could even argue that they're suggesting that deplatforming simply isn't the ultimate solution.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. They take the banning of Trump and conclude that there needs to be transparency in advertising? I mean, I agree, but it's certainly a weird article. I'm not sure if they're just piggybacking on a hot issue and inflammatory title to push this message. Whatever it is, I don't like it very much.
You're right that the content itself doesn't suggest Firefox doing something troubling, but the headline certainly does. It bothers me much more from a company known for privacy than it would from someone else.
How is "more transparency from platforms" not in line with what you'd expect from Mozilla? It's not like they just suddenly started to talk about the topic.
It is not particularly surprising considering that the founder of Brave was fired as Mozilla's CEO and replaced by the current one specifically because of politics.
After a bit of reading, it sounds like he has some very nasty personal views. At least he respected the Mozilla community enough to step down when they came to light.
His views do not impart themselves onto Brave of course, but I will stay with Firefox.
Mozilla's current CEO is like the opposite of what Firefox used to stand for... I can't wait to switch for something better. I think that he really likes the Google dollars.
Disabling most add-ons in Firefox Mobile, really? I still use the old engine (Fennec) even if it probably makes me vulnerable. And there's a bunch of other problems that make the new Fenix engine less useful then Fennec... I don't even know what is supposed to make the new engine better.
I'm a liberal. But this is fucking fascism. When you want to take your position and jam it down everyone's throat and police how people can even talk.
Fuck this. Decentralize everything.
Edit: I just re-read the article after skimming and now I feel completely different. The article title is really bad. Mozilla is just calling for more transparency into how advertisers and social media operates.
What a bad headline.
I hope Mozilla never treads into the censorship territory.
"Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation."
One has to read closely to pick up on the doublespeak. They are calling for the use of algorithms to hide ideas they disagree with and artificially promote ideas they agree with. It is soft censorship but far more sinister.
The people downvoting me would be terrified if it were Trump that had this power.
My belief is that nobody should have this power.
edit: You merry downvoters that believe we shouldn't have freedom of speech should move somewhere freedom of speech isn't permitted. That way you won't have to be offended anymore. Although I think it would be fitting if you don't have a say as to which speech is permitted.
reply