Ok sure, what do you want them to do instead then? 80% of their income is reliant on a tech giant's grace and is seemingly more and more likely to be cutoff soon. They need to survive somehow, and every monetised service they tried flopped thusfar.

The problem is that browsers aren't profitable. Mozilla need a revenue source other than donations, and that's why they're trying to make another product that'll stick. They need to make money somehow. If Google stops paying them because of the antitrust lawsuit, Mozilla will probably disappear in a few months.

If they're following the standard, which they often do but sometimes don't, white indicates 2.0 and blue indicates 3.0+. I think there are more but I don't remember the other colours.

I don't know much apart from the basics of YAML, what makes it complicated for computers to parse?

For me this is fighting over semantics. It doesn't really matter if it's legally piracy or not since nobody is gonna go after you for it either way. It's about whether what you're doing is moral or the intended way. You can use adblocker, but then you're just freeloading. Fact of the matter is that nothing is free and everything needs compensation when at scale. You can rightfully claim that YouTube shoves too many ads and that it's a monopoly so it abuses it's position, but at the end of the day you're using the service without compensating for it, so you're stealing at least something.

Women are a bit of a good pet.

Why does this have but plug support lmao.

I mean, to be fair, who would plan for the floor to collapse and move the latrine just in case.

Drones aren't the be-all and end-all, especially at this stage in the war. They can cause a lot of damage but countermeasures are being used more and more and you can't win a war with just drones.

Here's an Extra History video that goes more in depth into the whole ordeal: https://youtu.be/wPjg-pDbVzY

I honestly think the same. Dudes old as shit, has money and a family. He doesn't need the stress and obligations that come with the presidency. Maybe he gets a kick out of being in power, but from everything I saw about him I'd wager he would much rather just retire and live the easy life.

I have power toys insalled and I love it for a lot of its features, but I never got used to using the run menu.

I mean, you can change your passwords later on if you think a quantum computer broke them. In the case of quantum computers your network traffic is also gonna get cracked anyways, so they can steal your account information through that as well.

Interesting design but I've literally never used the start menu for the past 5 years I think. I only ever press the windows key and then type the name of the app I need.

Why do you think so? I feel like they're some of the most useful reviews I come across.

There's this very nice template you can use to quickly make a more detailed review without having to write it all yourself. You can always just google "Steam review template" to find it.

I mean that's just regular windows shenanigans. It often says it's waiting on some apps forever, and when you click cancel it tells you it's actually updating and that's why it's not shutting down.

This is a genuine economics question, but would these kinds of things ever even work? In the sense that, billionaires hold a lot of money, yes, but they never use a vast majority of it. That effectively means that money doesn't exist. Just pumping money into something doesn't create people and resources out of which you can create products.

If we were to redistribute wealth equally, how much would that actually help people (other than land and housing since that would definitely help enormously)? Sure some of the production capacity would stop going to producing some of the extremely expensive and resource intensive products such as yachts and the like, but it's not like rich people are buying 100s of ACs just for themselves. Shifting all of that production capacity to other goods I don't feel like is going to lead to that many more consumer products for regular people.

My point (and my actual question/thought) is that it would definitely help a lot of people a lot, but I feel like by how much is overstated, and I feel like the percentage of wealth that the 1% holds doesn't really matter as much as how the wealth in the rest of society is distributed (i.e. if the 1% were twice as rich but the other 99% had their wealth equally distributed, then that would almost be the same as if all of society had its wealth distributed equally)

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not focusing on the part about whether it's okay or moral for there to be people that are so much richer, I'm just talking about the practical consequences.

Well one reason is that this is basically exactly the thing current AI is perfect for - detecting patterns.

This would probably have much better audio quality.