unless your storage is a floppy disk, won’t be a problem

oh yeah, now one can accidentally close the Start menu by clicking in the gap between the panels.

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, this is broken, too. But around 40 taps later, it works once or twice.

Debian is nice.

The site you linked ia broken in this manner for me, too.

As for the pi-hole - no, nothing like that. I have some extensions and Firefox’s blocking set to strict mode, but they don’t matter.

Because Mozilla promised us privacy, and “privacy-friendly” ad tracking is still worse privacy than not baking ad tracking into the browser in the first place.

I don’t think “privacy” works in a way you snap your fingers, and bam, you have privacy, without any progress or stations in your way. Especially in today’s web. Also, it’s not just on Mozilla. On the contrary. I feel like Mozilla is the only “bigger name” in this market who tries to navigate in this shitstormy sea that is the web now.

Tho, it’s just me, but it sounds much better if my browser handles all the tracking and data sharing business in a controlled manner with advertisers in a “privacy-friendly” way than no control overall (especially since it’s Firefox and not Chrome/Edge), hoping only the other side would respect my preferences and requests.

But in the end, as I read other comments here, the problem is just the default state of the checkbox, got it. Feels a bit silly - in this particular case - but I can understand it.

I understand this, thanks. But still feels way too overreacted. But now, that’s just what I think about this.

Peoples are mostly angry at the fact that they just silently slipped this system in without asking for consent.

But why? Does it expose more data? More sensitive data than before?

What I don’t get, but maybe because of the lack of information I have on the topic is that if it’s better in terms of data privacy than before, or is it better if it’s turned on than off, why is it such a great problem, if it’s turned on by default? In this case, not turning it on would be something that one should be noted. Any technical, real-world reasons why not giving my consent to enable this feature gives reason to get mad, or is this really just about “not having a choice”, regardless the outcome?

If I understand all this correctly, Mozilla teamed up with Meta to create a method that helps advertisers in a user privacy-friendly way. Aside from the initial trigger people have here reading the word “Meta” or by just the existence of ads, is there any problematic with this, without going really deep into tinfoil hat territory?

Also, am I understanding it correctly that the outrage is mainly because this feature is enabled by default? So again, a function that helps protecting your privacy, is enabled by default? Because, it seems most people just offended by only this fact alone.

But I’m maybe missing something here.

PCs/laptops with Windows preinstalled

or even pay extra to install it, if the machine would have FreeDOS by default.

14 werewolves…

it’s just suspiciously perfect

first Tenacious D, now this…

Animal Crossing could benefit from it, but not in its current form tho

I mean, most people doesn’t even question how a dude walked on water, either.

Debian was always like this.

he really needs a hug

ah okay, thanks, I missed this one.

Are these only “just” pulled from the online catalog, or the browser itself blocks installation too from file?

If the prior, I don’t really like this action, but my browser won’t change because of it (for now?) and also Mozilla and Firefox served me well in the past almost 20 years since I use it, I trust these guys.

If the latter… that could be a different story.

I haven’t considered Microsoft Plus! as a separate software for some reason, but fair point.

my memories are kinda foggy, but using Plus! in 98, some themes (like the space one) did change the dialog images, too, didn’t they? (so the info bubble, red circle X, yellow triangle exclamation mark etc)