If two browsers render certain tags or styles differently, as a developer we need to know that so we can get the site to render properly on that browser.

This was more of an issue in the past, rather than an issue of a user running a legacy or esoteric web browser. There's almost no reason to support legacy browsers anymore, unless it's for a website that allows downloading another web browser. Esoteric browsers should fix themselves instead of needing web admins to correct things.

In modern web development, you're starting to have a Chrome monoculture where browsers share the same rendering engine, and either Firefox or Safari as alternates - and developers are more likely to be concerned about a mobile phone viewing the site rather than whether SafariFox renders something one pixel off.

there are many reasons we *want* the user agent string to accurately identify the browser.

Then they should use a library function that identifies said browser rather than the same type of roll-your-own system that required Windows 8 to skip directly to Windows 10, because developers parse the number "9" in Windows 95. .

Overtly break those websites. If a website doesn't support browsers because it can't parse User-Agent, then browsers shouldn't support those websites. When the broken website checks User-Agent, kill JavaScript so that it no longer works, dumping a message in the console. Also, give no User-Agent info, let them go blind on who they're handling.

Works best if all the browsers do it all at once.

Both sides are doing this.

There's Elon Musk saying that Twitter is a bastion of free speech, while immediately blocking journalists simply because they were critical of Musk at one point.

There's the anti-communist purge from the US government, the satanic panic in the pre-2000s trying to purge Dungeons & Dragons along with other works, and boycott of Dixie Chicks because they said something about the then-current president. Finally, a massive attempt on Janurary 6 to cancel the votes of half of the nation.

All these are from one side. What has the "other side" done in comparison?

Oh, and for reference, you're skirting or making a lot of extreme right-wing talking points. Namely, The cult of action for action's sake where others must take action on things before reasoning their way through them, Fear of Difference by implying that socialism must be something scary just because it's different, and Newspeak by simply dropping simplified examples in order to try cutting down on discussion.

It's hard for me to blame MSG for booting a lawyer.

MSG allegedly has a liquor license that requires them to accept anyone who isn't a disturbance. If they want to restrict random people, they should forgo the license.

Additionally, they should make the terms clear ahead of time rather than springing them out of nowhere.

This is not a disparagement of terminals, because they're either good at certain tasks, or allow simpler development.

Terminal emulators have barely changed in 30 years. They're still just scrolling windows of unstructured text. Why is there so little innovation in an application we use every day?

On a highly technical level, modern graphic terminals are meant to emulate the ascii plain text of older devices, which in turn emulate the 80x25 character display, which in turn emulate the 80-column punch card system, and early ASCII tables. Even though terminals are useful, they're still anchored by significant historical design.

There's been a few attempts to at least break out of the raw text stream - mostly the Curses library in order to give colored text, or to at least allow presentation beyond a simple text stream, but it was still designed for terminals rather than interactive GUIs. Additionally, something like Telnet (a primitive remote console) didn't autodetect the client's display size.

Now, there's room to make adjustments if the official standard is willing to shed the last remnants of the oldest terminals; perhaps shedding the various ascii control characters that don't seem to be used even in special cases (anyone seen Shift Out or Shift In?), and replace it with new control characters that can help. However, this requires changing a standard and that's extremely slow.

- If I type ls to show a directory listing, I should be able to right-click on a filename and get a list of operations to perform on that file, just like a file browser.

So, that would be a rich-text or hypertext terminal. After fiddling with the standard, let's pretend this works, and implementing it isn't too complex.

The question is how it will work. Let's say I'm on Windows, and using a telnet to a Linux system - how will right-clicking to get the filename help when going across computers? There's no guaranteed file sharing, or it might be blocked for some reason. Maybe the file isn't in a shared folder, such as something in /etc/ or /usr/home/root/

Your example works fine on local terminals, but not for an SSH into a remote computer.

- Why can't I cat an image file and see the image right in the terminal window?

At that point, it's full hypertext. I'd want to be very cautious with that, considering the many ways some webpages can attempt to trick the user into doing something that shouldn't. And since terminals are designed for dealing with admin-type stuff, it can become rather dangerous.

Most likely, it only applies if colors were selected by name rather than raw RGB values.

It's not like it's going to plop in a SOPA-like black box to overwrite Pantone Black.

QAnon exists simply by posting messages. The only thing that's necessary is identifying him, and there's two likely suspects.

"Official" QAnon posts are identified by using tripcodes. These are generated by typing in a certain password, and generates a hash. Users posting message using the same password will also have the same hash, and that identifies QAnon.

Of course, his initial password choices on were compromised, thus he had to change the password a few times.

I don't follow any QAnon crap that closely.

The only real way to follow QAnon closely is to visit a site known to advertise it's porn/troll/NSFW sections. Otherwise, it's safer to follow him at a distance, specifically through people who know what they're doing when they analyze the insane posts.

Also, QAnon is known to be inaccurate. Most of the predictions failed and aren't likely to occur.

In August 2021, he had a Tesla Bot demo. It was faster, and able to dance. Granted, it was a human in a body suit, but it's a rather disappointing reveal when the prototype is a bit conservative in movement and slightly slow.

Compared to Boston Dynamics, which is already having robots moving faster (perhaps a slight jog), able to do minor acrobatics such as a backflip, or even dance.

So the next Zelda game is Tears of the Kingdom, and therefore it's going to be torn apart. Perhaps it's about time, because the kingdom was unified for a long time, and that's starting to be a little cliche when it falls apart just from some overpowered baddie. Maybe an evil chancellor could help tear the kindgom apart by acting in a way that causes internal discord, as opposed to just tricking external groups to going into isolation.

Create and use a time library that doesn't fsck whatever program is using it.

It should be a solved problem by now. Input a number of seconds from some type of epoch, get an output date in string format. Input date string (potentially with how it's supposed to have been formatted), get associated timer.

And while they're at it - find a way past all the politics and get a standard way of writing dates.

It's more likely that someone at IBM said that, because that's how the hardware was designed. Bill Gates would have just made due with the hardware he had.

AKA you cause inflation.

Inflation was happening for decades, and it's only somehow an issue when discussing things that would help the poor instead of doing large scale bailouts of large companies that were faltering due to their own fault (e.g. the housing crisis of 2008, repo-lones in 2019, etc.)

everyone that seems to want to roll out a UBI does not really mean universal

At which point, they're not going for UBI, but either one of a minimum income guarantee (which is merely a quick fix that discourages work at a given wage) or a Selective Income System.

Also, there's already a selective income system in place. Those who have enough money can make more money simply by keeping a bank account, and there's likely higher income tiers where people can get more than just a trickle amount of interest. This one is variable based on how much money a given person has, and is weighted to rich people.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system ever tried.

Capitalism by itself only lifts the rich - those who have money get more money based solely on the labour of others.

For people to be lifted out of poverty, they need a stable income that can be lived on. Capitalism only provides that to those able to work, with an antipathy to those who are disabled for whatever reason. In addition, the current stage of capitalism wants to keep wages low, because they need to minimize expenses in order for that CEO to get a big bonus for cutting costs while workers remain close to poverty.

Certainly it needs some oversight

And the current stage of capitalism constantly pounds on the government to remove as much oversight as possible.

but in general its the best system we have found so far.

Universal Basic Income. Everyone gets an amount, and that can be reclaimed by taxing those who are somehow making exhorbant profits that are not being paid to workers.

With people more wary than ever about clicking on suspicious links in emails and text messages, zero-click hacks are being used more frequently by government agencies to spy on activists, journalists and others, according to more than a dozen surveillance company employees, security researchers and hackers interviewed by Bloomberg News.

In the early 90s, messaging clients (e.g. Email, IRC, etc.) didn't auto-execute code by design, and didn't take external content outside of the message in question. At worst, you'd have someone posting on a newsgroup/forum about some type of "Good Times Virus" which would wipe your computer, about it infecting your 2400 baud modem's subcarrier.

Most of these security flaws are successful implementations of the good times virus, because auto-execute is now by design.

How Can You Keep Your Credit Card Numbers from Being Stolen?

You can't. One of the major banks in my country had a leak, and there was a large number of cards that were compromised despite their lack of use. The most you can do is simply not photograph the front of your card to place it on Twitter, and not reply to questions asking about the three numbers on the back.

The cards were initially based on 1-factor authentication (or perhaps 0-factor): physically having the card. It's only much later that they had a second factor by requiring a pin.

That would be half the point, not the point. Even if it was the point, it doesn't mean much if there's an issue with the description or presentation.

Also, it's not even the point. If you read the rest of my comment, you'd notice that it's the unique father problem where it's formed by exactly one parent rather than being a garden of eden with no parent.