If I search the name, half the articles say 20k, other half 30k. Honestly, I have serious doubts about both figures…

Idk, on one hand I get what you mean. On the other hand, Firefox going away or being monetized in more aggressive ways will not be a good thing.

Honestly, I think I would prefer the lawsuit never happened and Google kept paying Firefox. Now, if Google loses, Firefox will likely head for enshitification. And if google wins, it sets terrible precedent :(

This is preparation for that in case google loses its appeal and is forbidden to pay Firefox to be the default.

Idk, I never used the weird advanced features of YAML, but the basics seems really nice for stuff you want people, especially non programmers, to edit. I generally default to YAML for config files.

Also, the drone falling could hit someone or something. So seriously, don’t.

Please, do NOT shoot at airborn targets, or any target where your are not certain a missed shot will safely land in an empty area.

How cute. The mental patients are playing a game, where they pretend half of them are normal <3

Kyle: *starts laughing*
Mom: You motherfucker!
🤣

deleted by creator

Go ahead and tell those big corpos to stop being anti social, I’m sure that’ll secure the funding and commitments necessary industry-wide

We are literally trying to pass a law to force them.

common OS standards

By OS, did you perhaps mean open or open-source?

Because it seems most people understood it as operating system.

I am talking about the video hypothetical. Trying to destroy a game only to profit off the released server.

it cannot be wrong to have monetary interest in your product

There is nothing wrong with making money off the games you make. But once you are done doing that, you shouldn’t be allowed to just wipe the thing people paid you for.

Because it would almost certainly not happen in reality. The server being released means everyone could spin up one for free. You wouldn’t be able to monetize it to any significant degree.

If you want to be generous toward Thor, he is a security expert trained to focus on any hypothetical risks, however unlikely. If you don’t, he is a game developer with monetary interest in this not passing and vast experience conning people.

You can abuse studios right now. This would not change that. It would not make maintenance risky or more expensive.

It provides an extremely theoretical motive for people to do the abuse, that is unlikely to materialize in reality.

And if you want to be theoretical, it removes ideological reasons for abuse. Right now, if you dislike an online game, and got the studio shut down, the game would be gone. With this initiative, it would survive removing the motivation to try in the first place.

It is also possible to block ads using some VPNs. But in general, if you want the freedom to modify things, you should not be using Apple products.

Are you really gonna be pedantic about me using the word “good” one time?

The title of the post is “The only good billionaire”. You seriously expect anyone to believe that was a slip of the tongue and not denial of the title?

You are a living meme, and I mean that in the worst possible connotation.

What do you expect? You guys are regurgitating quotes and theories with so many holes the Marvel movies are more believable. Of course the only reason I reply is to watch you rage, struggle to come up with excuses or desperately try to change the topic when I call out your nonsense. Bonus if it ever helps some lemming not to fall to this brain rot.

Want a genuine constructive good faith discussion? How about instead of regurgitating anticapitalist quotes, you post something worth discussing seriously. For example a plan for a fair system that does not fall apart as soon as some people act greedily and selfishly, like they always do. Or at least an outline of one, that we can work on to refine. Or you know, if you can’t come up with a whole new system, how to improve the current one.

Until then, you and lemmings like you are my comedic relief.

Which is irrelevant when discussing the morality of a person who bridged that divide by giving his wealth away.

No, you claimed

It still would have been better if workers got the money in the first place. There are no good billionaires.

Claiming this specific billionaire is not good either. Now you are trying to switch the topic to a systemic issue when your self-serving claim was called out.

What makes you think the workers downstream from him are not among the starving and homeless?

Because RoyaltyInTraining made that statement without referring to any additional information? So I obviously assume that he made his statement based on the information in the post.

Besides, even if they were, would donating the money be less effective than paying them in wages? Charitable donations are tax exempt, wages are not. Also, you assume he was in a position where he could do anything about the worker wages, which seems unlikely given how most companies work (wiki says he was not a full owner, just co-founder).