I mean, I'd love to see Google broken up, but this isn't news. DoJ has been asking specifically for Chrome to be sold for over a year now, and the lawsuit was started during the first Trump administration. Until the judge actually reaches a decision this is just recycled old news.
If you think, then you must already exist. I don't understand how people get confused by that.
I find adults going around trying to shame people for doing completely harmless things fucking gross.
Okay, but I'm definitely certain that the majority of gamers running Windows 11 in secure boot mode with TPM 2.0 are running Zen 3 or 4. How many times can they cut their user-base in half before the people who are left leave because it's a dead game?
I would guess Zen 1 through Zen 4 is currently the majority of gaming PCs. It's certainly a massive percentage. I don't think game companies can realistically just blacklist all of them.
No, you don't understand, it's all just part of a 5D chess gambit. If they crash the economy hard enough, then it will be cheap to manufacture things in the US! Plus there won't be any filthy foreigners coming to take the jobs, since the wages will all be worthless, so that'll fix immigration as well! As an added bonus, the garbage, worthless wages will also make it so it's cheaper to run understaffed call centers from the US as well, so you'll never have to worry about hearing someone with an Indian accent after you've been on hold for 6 hours. Isn't it great?
It is. I mean, it's also true, but it is pretty cringe.
That's fair. I guess I misunderstood. Sorry. Yeah, it would be nice if that part were smaller. It's still not a perfect one to one comparison. Feed crops do actually tend to use less other resources. Sometimes a lot less, depending on the crop you're comparing them to, but yeah, it's a lot of land that could be growing things for humans, and there's more of it than there needs to be. Sorry. You are right about that.
They removed a broadly worded promise that might theoretically be used to get them in trouble for selling anonymized data. I'm not happy about that, but it doesn't surprise me.
The rest is just people being angry at Mozilla for describing how a modern web browser works, because other companies have pointed at similar language to argue that they have the right to do whatever they want with any information they collect and no one has stopped them. That sucks, but the problem is that there are no consequences for large corporations, not that Mozilla is using the information you put into your browser to access the internet for you. Maybe Mozilla will also decide to intentionally misinterpret their own legalese to train some garbage AI, but the absolute worst case scenario is that they're the same as every other significant browser, and a more reasonable interpretation would be that the non-profit organization is probably not profit motivated and actually means the things they say.
Who knows. I can't see the future, but without Firefox forks of it are a dead-end, and any other browser is still going to collect a bunch of information and use it to navigate the web for you, because that's just how today's garbage javascript laden websites work. Yelling at Mozilla for explaining that in their ToS isn't going to fix it, and Ladybird isn't going to magically change how those websites work. If you really want to do something about it, don't use those websites. Good luck with that.
Is there anything in the new ToS that's even bad? Like, there are lots of people breathlessly ranting about how privacy is dead because Mozilla mentioned the existence of third parties and gibberish like that, but when I read it myself it mostly seemed like they were just saying that if you use third party services through Firefox then the third parties will have your data. That seems kinda like a nothingburger of a controversy to me. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer, maybe I missed something, but if so I certainly haven't seen anybody else explain it properly.
No. No. That's completely wrong. That's not what I think, because it doesn't make any sense. There are no crops that can be effectively and cheaply grown in rocky, arid wasteland. If we weren't using it to let cattle graze, it would be wild land being grazed by buffalo instead. Now, maybe you could argue that would still be better, but it wouldn't be growing food for humans any more efficiently. Buffalo aren't actually any more efficient than cattle at producing meat, and nobody's hauling water up to into the high Rockies to irrigate rocks. That's not a real thing that people would be doing if cattle weren't grazing there.
I don't know why so many people on Lemmy seem to think that when capitalism dies a fully formed socialist utopia will magically spring up in its place. The way we're headed when capitalism dies the people with all the guns will be in charge, and that's mostly the same people who already are. The end of the American republic probably won't be the end of the American empire.