Nice for people that use it I suppose. I don’t see a use case for it (nor have I ever heard of anybody doing this) but I’ll definitely give it a spin.

That’s quite posh, nice! 🥰

Imagine if we had ever discovered a device for doing that. 📷

I mean if never want one, but in an engineering level this site looks fascinating.

Aww, I was so hoping I’d get another assistant like thing, Google definitely needs more of those.

I suspect with how litigious Musk has become, the small man he is, they didn’t want to do something that could be constructed as trying to make people move away, actively?

I mean there’s a solid chance not a single coder now is the same as back when it was removed? It’s been quite a while. 😅

Yeah when they removed it there was virtually no comment on it. At the time everybody understood PWAs were just… you might as well use a new window and press F11. It’s just window dressing.

I mean I get it, there’s some marginal use cases. Sure. And it’s nice they’re back!

The last thing I want is for big corporations - independent of whether they’re phone making or telecommunications companies - to decide “the future of eSIM”.

Much like USB-C in the 🇪🇺 , this needs to be enforced as a standard via law!

Yeah I quote from that PR, in fact. That’s where I got that from.

Interesting, did you go check the merge request? Because I quote:

We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history.

Yes, that’s from post-change.

I mean, yeah.

Although it’s not difficult.

Take online hosting. Say you run a sync service - fully encrypted - and you upload to a hosting provider. Now I’m not an expert on when you pay for it, I’d intuitively assume this no longer applies but it can get messy with complementary services. Say you rent an AWS system and you get a file upload space as an “extra”.

Anyhow, you just exchanged non-anonymized user data (that it’s encrypted is irrelevant because you knew when uploading what it is it, so it was intentifyable and in fact that’s how you even knew what to upload and what not to) for a service (hosting) that can be constructed as payment for the data.

Sounds absurd? It is. That’s why lawyers cost so much money. 😂

What control does Mozilla have over people quoting parts of a merge request in a misleading way so as to make it appear in a specific way?

Don’t bother, Firefox’s community is all conspiracy+rage+kneejerk. That’s all they are, there is nothing on top of that.

They’re probably still salty how many users Firefox lost over the years from their “hardening” Firefox “pro tips”, and have to project that anger outwards instead of reflecting on it.

This thread, too. Scroll just a tiny bit through the actual change of the MR, and you realize how OP intentionally constructs things to appear sinister, which says more about them than Mozilla.

Uh, isn’t your quote a bit misleading?

While it’s true that the specific line you quote is deleted, that’s from a part of the FAQ.
But if you look further up, the line is still there just elsewhere on the page (you can see it before the re-format just above the part I linked to).

I quote:

We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history.

Uh, they don’t? Not an American, but sounds completely normal to me?

Yeah I was about to say, over here that’d be a serious insult to use. >.>

Yeah but the cops can’t have known this when they get a call, no?

So… good cop? Sounds perfectly fine tbh, I mean what should they have done? Ignore the call?!

deleted by creator