We're not talking about dissatisfaction here. We're talking about meeting basic needs like food, housing, and health services. Wanting to be satisfied of these things is absolutely true in general.
It's perfectly possible to get by with rice and lentils and a few vegetables, and if that's the common lifestyle of everyone in the community/country, many people are well satisfied with it. I've lived in such places.
But if you see the people around you enjoying an endless variety of steak and sushi and lobster and so on, and you're working all hours yet still only able to stretch to rice & lentils, your satisfaction may be less.
An illogical reaction? Maybe. A human one? I think so.
These are my thoughts exactly. In fact, nothing exclusive to Russia is mentioned in that article at all. It describes old known attack vectors that can be exploited by China as much as Russia, or any other bad actor for that matter. Very strange that the word "Russia" is mentioned without substance so many times throughout the article.
Perhaps they wanted it to be taken seriously, a reference to Russia seems like one of the more effective approaches to instill fear and gain trustworthiness.
I think there is likely a common need for a set of standard training models. This may hinder innovation for some time, but it's a cost we should accept when releasing a potentially dangerous technology to the public. It would have the added benefit of multiple companies contributing to a common self-driving standard which could accelerate its development.
That being said, when the first real cars were introduced to the world and later improved upon there were many more fatalities than we're likely to experience with self-driving technology.
Every technology is dangerous. Every technology costs lives to some extent when spread across billions of people. I'm sure forks take more lives each year than self driving cars.
Weigh this against the potential lives saved. I posit you'd be killing more people with drunk drivers by slowing innovation than you'd be saving via luddism.
If both are equally popular, it would make sense that this be an easily configurable option in the browser's settings. Favouring one option over the other will inevitably alienate about half the consumers of this awesome feature, which seems like a bit of a waste to me.
It seems like the Firefox team intends to only have what maximises the privacy security protections, and that this extra functionality (hereafter referred to as SameCon, versus the current DefCon) is ideally implemented as an add-on. I'd imagine they're thinking that if a user wants SameCont, that user can just add it as an add-on
I don't think this is the ideal solution, because I'd imagine there are a population of users who just wouldn't consider the possibility that SameCon could Be an add-on. Especially if the community is split roughly down the middle.
I think yours is the ideal solution, making SameCon a configurable option, but having the default option be DefCon. That way, the privacy and security protections are the Default behavior, but a user has the option to change it Built In
"Opening a new tab from a container window opens a normal tab and not a
container tab"
I should note that the last comment on that issue was made in July, so I went ahead and commented asking about adding a setting to change the new-tab container inheritance behavior.
They're probably making a conservative change that's easy to back out of, as a default, and then let various extensions experiment and discover how it should really work.
Personally I would want tabs to be in the bozo container by default, unless I explicitly grant the website access to a trusted container, or something.
Extension makers will experiment and Firefox can choose from what gets learned.
Popularity is only one aspect. The only thing split popularity means is that you probably don't want to make the choice with that as your top criterion. Also, people preferring A doesn't automatically mean you'll alienate them by choosing B. Choosing this default because it's more secure, in the face of a split vote, seems like a pretty decent option to me (and I say this as somebody who would've voted for the other option).
Unfortunately, Adobe is a terrible company these days. I had been using their products for over a decade, so unsubscribing and vowing never to work with their software again was not an easy decision for me. It sucks, because I think their software is great, but the company has completely lost my business.
Seems like an honest mistake in using this theme, though taking an image from bootcamp is a little weird, probably just forgot but it should never have been in there even in a mockup.
The theme authors themeum should be ashamed of themselves though, and it looks like their theme has been swiftly deleted as it is now 404.
Looks like they just shamelessly rip off people's copyright work to put into their themes, first image from one of their premium themes came up on tineye as all rights reserved:
It mostly did before V8 was created. A few people ran JS outside the browser using Mozilla's Rhino, but it wasn't very common. Nodejs probably was the first widely adopted platform for non-browser JS, and it was built on V8 after V8 already existed. So I believe historically server-side JS did not drive JS performance.
It should be mentioned that Microsoft has had server side Javascript (well, Jscript) running on IIS since 1997. I used to write data driven websites in it.
