If you’re Australian, Bali.

Not really. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate. The fact that it arrived at the right conclusion is a testament to Wikipedia’s editorial policies.

I don’t even think that’s remotely true.

I’ve seen two cases that actually directly impacted my ability to use Firefox. I can only presume there are many more. Those being supporting the column-span CSS property (available since 2010 in other browsers with vendor prefix, and early 2016 without, while being late 2019 for FF) and supporting iPad OS’s multi-window functionality (introduced mid 2019, Firefox has had it for just a handful of months now). I have first hand experience telling me very directly that this is true.

There’s also been a lot of talk about Firefox’s lack of support for PWAs. I’ve not experienced that myself to be able to comment more than to say I’ve noted others have complaints.

The point is that with open source you can effectively leech off of Google for now, while still retaining the flexibility to nope out and do your own thing at any point you decide.

Considering just how severely behind they are already (as I mentioned in my other comment, they’re often 3–5 years behind other browsers in implementing new web standards or operating system features), I see anything they can do to reduce how much they need to maintain independently as a good thing. In an ideal world where they had all the funding and development power they could want I might say sticking with the completely independent Firefox would be great. But that just isn’t where they’re at today.

They wouldn’t be at the mercy of anything. That’s…how open source works. If it changes in a way that breaks things for you, don’t pull that change. At that point, if the change is drastic enough to require it, you can turn that soft fork into a hard fork and hope that Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc. join you; something that would significantly hamper Google’s ability to maintain their dominance of the browser engine market. That’s a choice that they simply don’t have today when being based on Firefox and Gecko means using an inferior browser platform.

Honestly I’ve been saying for some time that Mozilla’s resources would be much better spent making Firefox a soft fork of Chromium. Primarily: use the Blink browser engine and V8 JS engine, with only the changes to those that they deem absolutely necessary, and maintain a privacy-forward Chromium-based browser. Maybe try and enlist the help of Brave, Vivaldi, and other browsers that are currently Chromium but which prefer more privacy than Google offers.

It’s not zero effort, and especially as Google continues to develop Chromium with assumptions like the removal of Manifest V2 it might take some effort to maintain, but it cannot possibly be as much effort as maintaining an entire browser.

This is being reported as a rumour that’s been debunked, but I’m doubtful how true that is. Seems quite likely to me they’ve bowed to pressure.

Reading it again I can see the sarcasm oozing from it, but in the context of the comment before which seems a more sincere love of the guy (not least because it demonstrates someone actually watched his post–Top Gear content) I thought it was worth pointing out what a horrible human being Jeremy Clarkson is.

I honestly don’t know how I feel about his Top Gear castmates. On the one hand they seem much more genuinely good people from their own actions and content outside of Top Gear & its spiritual successor. On the other they did seem more than willing to get back on board with him even after he committed assault (on top of all the other shit).

I actually deliberately avoided mentioning the Troubles because I wanted to bring up cases where everyone today could fairly uniformly agree that we were discussing freedom fighters more than terrorists. Too many today would still say that the Provisional IRA were the bad guys (or at the very least that they were “as bad as” the other side). But the point I wanted to make was how given enough time, even terroristic actions can end up being viewed on the whole as coming from the “good guys”, if their cause is viewed as just.

I could also have mentioned American revolutionaries.

Ttrpg.network seems to work well. As does the Star Trek one, even despite serious problems with some of their communities’ moderators that the admins have failed to take action on.

I think it’s a format that can make sense especially if there’s a broad range of specific communities around a central topic. Like ttrpg.network can have communities dedicated to each RPG, one for memes, for art, for broader conversation about the hobby, etc. It means you know if you want something RPG-related, that’s the instance to look for.

In a way, you could even say all the various country instances, including my own home insurance, are doing the same thing. What is a country instance if not “entire instance devoted to one area”?

Are we really calling that racist homophobe who rails against road safety and assaults people a “role model” of any sort?

I just want to briefly make one point because I think most of the important points have been very well covered by others already.

What’s terrorism and what’s freedom fighters is determined by history. By the same standards that Hamas are being called terrorists, you could easily make an argument that 1910s Irish republicans, black South Africans under apartheid, and British suffragettes (not to be confused with suffragists) could easily be considered terrorists. Innocent civilians were killed by all these groups, but looking back on it today we almost universally say they were in the right, because they were fighting for their groups to receive rights denied to them by the ruling class. Their methods weren’t always as perfectly clean as we might ideally want, but the primary target was always someone oppressing them in some way. And right now and for the last half century+, Israel have been oppressing the Palestinian people.

2 hours a day is pretty crazy, depending on the intensity. I’m a dedicated amateur athlete and would have been under 10 hours a week training for a marathon, and woulda been barely over that even when doing my most intense triathlon training.

But a light run/walk most days with a harder gym session or run 3 or 4 times a week is a very different question.

If your goal is to get generally healthy, exercise is brilliant. Don’t be afraid to walk on your runs at first to allow you to recover and keep running.

If your goal is to lose weight, diet control is the most important thing. Exercise can actually make things worse if you aren’t careful, because your body will instinctively want to eat more. You’ll probably need to make sure that you don’t eat more kilojoules after starting exercise than you already eat now. But also as the other reply said, cut your carbs, add more protein (necessary to help your body repair itself after the damage that exercise causes) and veggies. Lots of leafy greens especially.

And what carbs you are eating would be better as whole meal and/or multigrain, rather than white bread/rice and plain pasta.

Olive oil is a deeply important cultural touchstone for Palestinians, according to a post I saw a day or two ago.

Wow. Unnecessary and rude. That’s a great contribution to the conversation.

Gonna be honest, I only vaguely recognise the name Patrick Swayze without knowing exactly what he’s famous for. An actor, I think? And I have zero idea who Paul Walker is. Anomalocarus I gather from context is an extinct animal of some sort, which is cool, but I lack the knowledge to know precisely why this specific species is highly valuable.

So Robin Williams gets my vote almost by default, even if I didn’t have more reason to choose him beyond that.

If you’re a fan of tieflings (based on your username), I’m curious, have you read Erin M. Evans’ Brimstone Angels series? The main characters are tieflings, and it’s where the quotes at the beginning of the race entry for tieflings and dragonborn in the 5e Player’s Handbook came from. Highly recommend.

But I don’t think you need to go from the time when arcades were entirely irrelevant, but merely where they were no longer the main driving force. That’s at most the late '90s with gen 5 consoles and many big popular or influential game franchises like Quake, Pokemon, Age of Empires, Fallout, Diablo, and Grand Theft Auto (that’s '96 and '97 alone).

And you need to go up until at least the time when few of the largest games were available without cancerous monetisation strategies, not merely when a few games had started doing it. So you definitely need to go up to at least the launch of the 7th generation consoles in 2007.

To bring it back to the original point of the conversation, that’s not to say that it isn’t worth preserving games that did have those strategies of course. It just doesn’t detract from the sense of a period when the majority of gamers’ experience was much better.

We’ve been complaining since the 90s. I wasn’t joking earlier, “Ubisoft greedy” today is a carbon copy of “Capcom greedy” in 1997

And EA greedy in 2007. Doesn’t mean that what they were doing then was as bad as what is being done today.

But an arcade game is a physical object. The preservation needs of arcade games are very different to games distributed on cartridge or disk, which is why I suggested that a digital library would be focusing on home game consoles, especially those released at a time when home gaming was the main way gaming got experienced (i.e., after arcades were the most popular way).

[24 years is] too short of a blip to consider a golden age

Assuming that “too short” and reference to a “golden age” was meant in refutation to my claim of the 3rd–6th console generations, which lasted from 1983 until 2007. If that’s the claim, I find it absolutely absurd. When we discuss the golden age of TV we’re talking barely one decade, from the mid-to-late oughts to the late 10s.

If you meant something else by that bit, I’m sorry, please disregard the above paragraph. But I don’t know quite what you do mean.