As I already said in the previous post:
"MacOS mostly doesn't really even use ~/.config, because, well, "Apple".
We don't know if Mozilla will do that on MacOS, which does not follow all Unix conventions. Especially desktop ones, of which this is.
>"Linux" appears ZERO times in the specification."
And yet, 99% of who this change will affect will likely be Linux users. MacOS mostly doesn't really even use ~/.config, because, well, "Apple".
>"This is a specification for UNIX. Linux copied from UNIX but is not UNIX."
If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Linux is Unix, in all ways that matter to anyone now (and for a long time before now). Worrying about exact Linux vs Unix vs UNIX vs Unix-like vs BSD vs POSIX is kinda no longer relevant.
>"Apps should keep their files in their own directories. Spreading them across a 1000 different directories makes no sense and just make uninstall a hassle"
It will still be in its own directory. Just in ~/.config/mozilla instead of ~/.mozilla
For example, LibreOffice stores its settings in ~/.config/libreoffice, GIMP is in ~/.config/GIMP, Thunar is in ~/.config/Thunar, VLC is in ~/.config/vlc, etc...
>"To date Firefox has just positioned all files under ~/.mozilla rather than the likes of ~/.config and ~/.local/share.
That is not technically correct. They have been using ~/.cache correctly for a very long time. So it is not *all* files. But it is true the other files have been in ~/.mozilla. I manage an ACTUAL multiuser system (something you rarely see today; yes, hundreds of different users each often running Firefox on that one machine), and even I don't care much that it is ~/.mozilla instead of ~/.config/.mozilla, but I will have to adjust a lot of scripts.
MacOS has its own barriers to calling itself a professional operating system. A good part of my job is forcing it to conform to basic enterprise system management practices.
Calling them names and leveling false accusations at them is kind of the exact opposite of ignoring them in peace. Unless that's what brings you peace, in which case you're the mentally ill fuckup in that equation.
Demanding that people who are different from you to explain themselves to your satisfaction before you're willing to leave them the hell alone is peak conservative asshole.
I can manufacture outrageous events from my imagination and then extrapolate that fiction into a nation-wide systemic problem too!
There are a couple of things going on there. First of all, schools are really designed to teach kids en masse. If you had to teach ONE kid, you'd never set that kid up as we do, where a kid sits down and a teacher talks to them from the front of a room and, after that, gives the student a few minutes of individual attention. The classroom format is designed to maximize the amount of the teacher's time spent teaching while trying to maximize the aggregate learning of the class. But, that means that, for any particular kid, there's a fair bit of the class time when they're not learning at all or learning slower than they are capable of.
You can offset that, some, with differentiated instruction where you put the "smart" kids together -- there, the teacher can go at a faster pace, can provide more challenging work, and so on. But, it still has the same fundamental flaw -- you're optimizing for use of the teacher's time, not the student's.
The other thing is that schools, especially public schools, are bureaucracies that tend to be driven by centralized policy, not by individual decision making at that staff level. Part of that is necessity, but part of it is because administrators don't trust student-facing staff to make good decisions and are also hyper-concerned with liability when student X gets to do something when student Y doesn't. If X and Y are of different races, then there will be a claim that Y was denied BECAUSE of his/her race, even if the decision ultimately made sense for both X and Y.
You're just starting to acknowledge the possibility?
Sure. I would expect that each country would want to protect themselves from other countries.
>"This is about whether a hostile third party can affect a vehicle remotely because of manufacturer incompetence."
Oh, well, both are important
I have often wondered if it is reasonable to just find the antenna(s) and put a keyswitch across it/them, so you have absolute control over when/if they can be accessed remotely at all.
>"I will pause judgment until they conduct the same test on domestically made buses."
Most new vehicles have all kinds of spyware and remote control crap (mine certainly does). But, presumably, domestic ones are nowhere near as much of a threat than a foreign, potentially hostile nation-state.
>"12345" topping their list while "123456" dominates among everyone else.
Not a SINGLE system I use, and I use a LOT of systems, would allow such a stupid password. Granted, there are also tons of systems that go extreme in the other direction with requiring FAR too complex (which is also incredibly stupid). And the stupidest of all is password aging.
A reasonable password, coupled with rate limiting and lockouts, is very secure. It will not be broken by brute force on the "outside" of properly-configured systems.
>"I just had trouble looking at a comment on one of my posts yesterday because I can't get through the Cloudflare bot detector."
I had the same problem yesterday and this morning. I could not open any direct links to postings. Period.
Ironic because I recently posted on Slashdot about how dangerous it is that all these sites are handing over their accessibility to a single huge company like Cloudflare, and complaining that Slashdot was throwing bot checks against me all the time in the last few weeks (which it had never done before).
Kiss your keyboard goodbye!
