While the classification of cattle is in hot dispute, they are either a species or subspecies that have no other purpose than to be meat. For more thousands of years than you can keep in your "enlightened" brain, they have been selectively bread for traits that make them utterly incapable of existing in any sort of unproitected wild setting.

So when you say things may improve, the fact is, when we stop eating them, then they will cease to exist. So if you think "better" means oblivion, then, by all means, advocate for a stop to their use as meat.

So let's assume you're successful. Let's assume we eliminate the use of animals as food for humans. What are you going to do for an encore? Should we grow millions of tons of lab meat to feed every obligate carnivore on the planet? Put separation barriers between them and all prey, because the prey have feelings? Or maybe just eliminate all carnivores, as being immoral species?

We are omnivores, and the best, highest quality nutrition we can have is by exercising that nature. The use of science to make high quality meatless options available is great, but as a method for making better high-quality nutrition available to more people. Talk of it being a substitute on moral grounds is absurd on its face. Applying inter-human morality to human-prey interactions is neither useful nor relevant.

However you feel on the subject of cows as meat, though, invoking similarities between the eating of a steak and slavery and sexual exploitation is repugnant. To put farmers on a class with slavers and rapists is literally disgusting. That does a grave injustice to people who have been oppressed and is shameful. You need to rethink your "morals". They are significantly wanting.

Then yourself a Fairphone 5. The back opens. The battery comes out. It takes a microSD card (which is more and more going the way of the Apple...er....Dodo). And every component in it is replaceable with a screwdriver.

Moore's law is only a suggestion any more, and the real reason we can't use old phones is screens break and they get behind on Android updates. With the Fairphone, the screen comes off with four screws and it's guaranteed to have Android updates for at least 5 major revisions.

For anyone in North America who wants one, Clove Technology in the UK will ship it. Its a little thicker than a flagship phone, but I actually rather like its heft. And for anyone with tinfoil hats, it's drop dead simple to put /e/OS on it too.

But I identify as a drupe.

Don't get started. I grow tired of the self-righteous and pretentious constantly tossing that out. If you're serious it's not useful, and it's not even funny in jest any more.

There are so many foods which are botanically fruits but used as vegetables that the botanical distinction is meaningless except to a botanist. In food, it's a fruit if it's used as a fruit. It's a vegetable if it's used as a vegetable. Interestingly (thank God) that is the way they are classified under the law too. In most jurisdictions some person, thinking themself overly clever, will inevitably try and litigate the issue, usually to avoid duties and tarrifs. They argue that the botanical difference makes it worthy of different treatment. The good news is that judges tend to shut them down as idiots too.

Beans (of all types), Cucumbers, Zucchini, Sweet Peas (which are beans), and Corn are also botanically fruits. Feel free to advocate for calling them fruit in every day speech. Avocado, Ocra, Olives.... hmmmm? Bell Peppers, Eggplants... do I have to continue?

How about if you start advocating calling Brussels Sprouts, Cabbage, Broccoli and Cauliflower the same thing because botanically they are all the same species?

This is exactly what RHEL wants for every downstream build. This is why they made the changes to Centos not getting access to RHEL. This is why RHEL EOLed version 7 shortly thereafter. I commented when those changes were made that this was all about shutting down the open source community in favour of a commercial model. In another couple years, RHEL will be the new SCO as some downstream distribution tries to hold on and RH gets increasingly forceful about anyone using that distro in any way shape or form giving them money.

The fact that they haven't managed to do it so far?

Jokes aside, the obvious answer is "nothing". And if Firefox magically started being fully compatible with the other browsers in the way it does rendering and runs scripts, that would probably lend itself well to future improvements in take-up rates.

I hope, though, rather than believe that this will happen. The reality is that they got themselves to this point. They screwed over users in back-to-back-to-back releases, ignoring clear consensus for user preferences, killed the plugin developers with breaking changes over and over, and then when they discovered scores of issues with popular plugins, their answer was to run scripts that combed through their plugin libraries to remove all the ones they broke. Plugin authors would just get finished fixing things when they would break it all over again. Then they started weirdly slavish copying of Google practices, like adopting Chrome's fast major release cycle pattern in a project that was neither technically nor philosophically suited for it - like some sort of young child parodying an adult without really understanding why it wasn't working for them.

All in all, they have repeatedly demonstrated not just a knack for, but an unquestionable brilliance at snatching defeat from the jaws of success. Over and over, they barely recovered from one fiasco before they fucked over users yet again. There are only so many times that you can do that before no one comes back.

Frankly, given the arrogance and contempt they showed their plugin developers and end users who didn't agree with their changes, I say good riddance. I can see little redeeming value to have come from Mozilla in a decade.

So the actual answer to your question, what's to stop Mozilla from making themselves compatible? Mozilla. That's what. They can't make themselves compatible with anything.

There are about ten other services that will automatically re-enable the Windows Update Service if you turn it off. It quite effectively self-heals. It will stay off for a little while, but then a day or two or maybe even a week later it will be on again. Even so, disabling all update capability is relatively easy. Less easy is disabling just the automatic part and retaining the ability to manually install updates you choose.

Good luck.

You know what, I'd support that for all vendors that refuse to allow manual updates. That might be a good way to revert back to the days of sanity when people could pick and choose. A few well placed lawsuits when a non-optional update causes problems would be instrumental in taking us back to the good ole days.

I still can do my updates manually, but the amount of new pain I have to go through to kill auto-updates with each subsequent version of Windows is exceptional. Issues like this make it worth the pain in the long run, but God it makes me angry setting it up.

Great question. A better question is how they were allowed to have this data on net-facing machines to begin with. And how many top level people in government are getting quiet letters saying "We know about your love child, we want a favour or else this gets reported"?

The answer is we'll never know because laws don't compel them to disclose, and they never do.

Again, they don't disclose this. Don't blame Slashdot. If you think you can compel them to answer you, then you dig it up and you reveal it so there can be a Slashdot article on your journalism. It's not Slashdot's fault that 23andme got hacked and won't reveal anything about it.

I agree, they should have to. In fact, if a single person's private data is breached, they should be required by law to reveal with specificity the exact nature and method of the breach. Down to the buffer overflow used to do it. Too many companies have breaches and hide their poor security behind a wall of silence.

Likely yes, or it could be made to. Which is actually the problem.

GNU has been (rightfully) a vocal proponent for the Unix philosophy of simplicity and co-operation. In almost every other way, including its vision for a kernel. With the very notable exception of Emacs.

Emacs has been inexplicably and tortuously extended in strange and unusual ways for a generation, to the point where it's a Frankensoftware entity more than application. Hell, it's hard to describe what Emacs even is any more. Seriously, what is Emacs? Text editor? Authoring environment? Development environment? Scripting host? Screen manager? Gaming platform? When all of those are right, then something is very wrong.

Bloatware at its earliest and worst.

[Author's Note] The opening sentence to this I wrote somewhat tongue in cheek. But as I wrote the last sentence, I thought, ok, I'll bet someone actually has tried to make emacs into a video player/editor. And yup. That too. So I added the link.

To the marketing people "new to Java" inherently implies "new".

Just unpush the Turbo button

I've got news for you. It doesn't take even a few sentences for the GPT et al crowd.

The problem was you couldn't turn of scraping without turning off the ability to have your site indexed at all. Google was playing dirty by making them tacitly agree to give them their contact for the privilege of being indexed.

This is a hugely important step. This is, finally, a success story for carbon offsets and carbon taxes. We have seen carbon offsets pass around for the dumbest shit since they started. For stuff that makes no actual difference or even real sense. Land owners who sign deals they won't cut down trees on land they already had no intention of, and suddenly that's a carbon offset that can be sold. Stuff like that made no actual difference, and suddenly some company ponies up a little cash for it and it's an offset for their spewing.

This, however, this is EXACTLY what the carbon offset mechanism is supposed to do. Money changing hands from companies that emit, but who are not (and don't want to be) experts in capture or remediation, to companies who can now focus 100% on doing just that in a way that otherwise has no business model to make money.

This is where carbon tax works. If it's less efficient than a forest, I don't care, and neither should you. I mean, yes, let's stop cutting them down, and yes, let's plant more. That's a given. But this is a fantastic way of helping to stop the bleeding. It's not "the" answer, but it's a valid and valuable part of it. It's a drop in the bucket, but that's how the first drop always looks.