Consider for a moment that browsers still support multiple protocols besides hypertext transfer.
When the protocol is not https, then it will show it. In fact, it will show if the page is http and not https.
The lock icon (the one showing certificate information when clicked) only shows when the page is https, so essentially that icon replaces the https://
You can increase the number of items shown by bumping up the browser.urlbar.maxRichResults setting in about:config.
But you won’t get a scrollbar even if you bump it till it goes beyond the height of your screen.
I mean… it would be simpler if it didn’t run any commands.
I think the point is that the UI of the bar wasn’t really more complicated before. So it’s not like the bar itself has really gotten any simpler. Specially if they aren’t removing the previous ways to access those functions.
That said, I do like the idea.
Do you use it on Linux? I recently got a Vader 4, it works wireless on xbox mode (using the xpad linux module), but I was hopping to make use of the gyro (hopefully without losing the analog triggers), and it seems that the dinput mode (which does allow some gyro action + analog triggers and working extra buttons) does not really work with the wireless dongle for me (it works if I plug it via cable, but that’s also not optimal since it disconnects mid play sometimes for some reason).
I have astigmatism too and for me it looks just as bad when inverted, a blurry mess of black on white.
To me, what makes one a better choice vs the other has more to do with my environmental lighting.
You don’t need about:config for this.
This is the same setting you can configure in the preferences under “Website appearance”… if you change that you’ll see the about:config setting changes too.
It’s worth noting that presently mozilla earns $0 from my not using google, and not seeing sponsored tabs.
I thought Google pays (or paid?) Mozilla just to be the default engine out the box, regardless of whether you change it or not.
Another point is that it’s so easy to turn those things off (the sponsored shortcuts too) that I wonder if it would be worth the cost of launching an alternate version behind a paywall while making sure it works only for people who pay (which could be seen as DRM anyway, with potentially massive backslash). So I imagine the end result would not be that profitable (whether they decide to paywall it properly or not). Those who wanna donate and have no ads can do that already, those who want a cleaned up version of Firefox can have that and from neutral and independent third parties which I’d argue is better than if it were Mozilla who did it (and you can donate to Mozilla while using those too)… so I’m not sure it would make sense.
But it would make sense to have a donation pool specifically to fund Firefox development. That would be something interesting, considering Mozilla does other things besides Firefox. But I expect they don’t do that because they probably fear all donations will move there and they don’t want to lose funds for other things. We might need to create a separate organization if we want an independent fund for Firefox-based browsers.
Or open about:profiles (which you can put conveniently in your bookmark bar).
Yeah, it protects Jimmy from having to unconditionally contribute to society & its many organizations.
It allows Jimmy to set conditions and control who can use it and who cannot. For example, he can ally with one particular big corpo (or even start building one himself) so they can hold that thing hostage and require agreements/fees for the use of that thing for a long long time.
So now, instead of all people, including big (and small) corpos, having free access to the idea, only the friends of Jimmy will.
The reality is that if it wasn’t for Jimmy, it’s likely that Tommy would have invented it himself anyway at some point (and even improved on it!). But now Tommy can’t work on the thing, cos Jimmy doesn’t wanna be his friend.
So not only does it protect Jimmy from having to contribute to society without conditions, it also protects society from improving over what Jimmy decided to allow (some) people access to. No competition against Jimmy allowed! :D
Even without patents, if the invention is useful I doubt the inventor will have problems making money. It would be one hell of a thing to have in their portfolio / CV. Many corpos are likely to want Jimmy in their workforce. Of course, he might not become filthy rich… but did Jimmy really deserve to be that much more richer than Tommy?
There are many games that had that mechanic before Arceus.
In particular, Craftopia (which is from the same developers of Palworld) had capsule devices that you can throw to enemies in a “virtual space” while characters “engage in combat” before Arceus was a thing.
Just because they wrote a patent does not make it enforceable… patents don’t really mean anything until they are actually tested in court so they are just tools to try and scare people away whenever a company wants to bully with the prospect of a lawsuit.
I feel that Palworld is likely to win this, this actually is an idiotic move from Nintendo and a win for Palworld… now they will get more publicity, perhaps another spike in sales, and they are finally given the opportunity to prove how they are in the right, so they can shut up all the naysayers who complained about it. I’m hoping all the paranoic empty claims about “blatant asset theft” will be settled once and for all.
My worry is that the other 20% might actually come from other forms of partnerships and integrations not unlike what they probably had in mind with this, and that dropping Google might actually make them more dependent on seeking this kind of initiatives, not less.
I don’t know how many people you actually need to maintain a browser. But if it’s actually possible to do it without any kind of money from any of those sources in a way that can be sustained, then it would make more sense to make a fork (or alternative, like Ladybird) and just use that.
Like I said, I think it’s too late for Mozilla to shift course, I don’t expect they’ll ever do that. At least not until they are forced by a competing project if it happens to become successful (or a similar huge wake up call that leaves them no alternative).
Where would the money come from then? donations? Or do you mean they should shrink, fire people and downscale.
I think it’s too late for them to switch direction, not without a lot of people getting laid off. Though maybe that will ultimately happen if they finally end up bankrupt.
Is “intent” what makes all the difference? I think doing something bad unintentionally does not make it good, right?
Otherwise, all I need to do something bad is have no bad intentions. I’m sure you can find good intentions for almost any action, but generally, the end does not justify the means.
I’m not saying that those who act unintentionally should be given the same kind of punishment as those who do it with premeditation… what I’m saying is that if something is bad we should try to prevent it in the same level, as opposed to simply allowing it or sometimes even encourage it. And this can be done in the same way regardless of what tools are used. I think we just need to define more clearly what separates “bad” from “good” specifically based on the action taken (as opposed to the tools the actor used).
I think that’s the difference right there.
One is up for debate, the other one is already heavily regulated currently. Libraries are generally required to have consent if they are making straight copies of copyrighted works. Whether we like it or not.
What AI does is not really a straight up copy, which is why it’s fuzzy, and much harder to regulate without stepping in our own toes, specially as tech advances and the difference between a human reading something and a machine doing it becomes harder and harder to detect.
If you are into open source, give Remnants of the precursors a try, it’s a modern spiritual successor of the oldie Master of Orion.
To each their own. For me, a good lore and dialog is what makes a good RPG stand out.
If I want action and reflexes, I’d go play an action game. If I want strategy, I’d go for a puzzle game, or a 4X, deckbuilder, etc. But in a proper RPG what I look for is good lore, engaging story and some level of freedom that makes me feel I’m having an impact in that world. If AI can help with immersion and/or dynamic changes, I’m all for it. Of course, for that to happen they need to make sure it does stay in character and does not hallucinate something incoherent.
If there’s an AI chatbox that actually can stay coherent and be set up as a game without feeling like you have to input too many instructions to the AI to push the narrative (I think AI Dungeon gets close) then well, you could almost consider that being an RPG already. After all, the first RPGs were all text based. So I would already consider that the first iteration of AI-based RPG game. But translating that to a live 3D environment would be the next step.
Only if they use it the same way and within the same context. But isn’t that what always happens when a new gaming system/idea explodes and clones start poping up? I don’t think that matters much, in fact competition might actually be a good thing.
The article talks about how they are ok with using AI for things outside generating images, texts and so. For example, they are fine using the rudimentary AI of any typical enemy in one of their games. So I expect procedural generation that does not rely on trained bayesian network models is ok for them.
It looks like they just seem to be concerned about the legality of it… so they might just start using it as soon as the legal situation for AI models is made safe.
The thing is that being “willfully ignorant” has served them well, so it makes it the smart move when the goal is “line go up”.
Give me money and call me stupid, why would I care what a few “smart” people think when millions of “stupid” people give me all I want?
I wonder if freeing up those resources also implies that much of the adware Microsoft often includes in Windows might be removed too.
if it’s not: I’m skeptical that the gain in resources would be enough.
if it is: I’m skeptical that this OS won’t be locked down as much as possible to prevent it to be used for anything useful beyond this specific gaming usecase and/or specific to pre-authorized devices.
I think Microsoft benefits too much from the adware they add to Windows to allow this new version of the OS to potentially be used as an alternative.