No, moron. That is a statement of fact. Free speech is not a license to malign.The courts will decide if the specific statement made here is correct or not. But given the possibility that it isn’t, a defamation lawsuit is clearly a recourse available to the accused party.

You're walking into the legal hole of having to prove that the concentration of sugar in the said product is a toxic concentration . Or over number of years , that has a detrimental effect. Sugar by the way, is one of the most harmless 'artificial' substances known to us in terms of toxicity and disease progression. It's less toxic than table salt. You would need the kind of evidence that exists for tobacco, that has accumulated over 50 years of research.

You just lose.

Nope. This is not fascism. You should read the article and you will see two aspects:

1. If you called me a murderer on a public platform without evidence to support your claims, I would sue you for defamation and libel. That would be fair. This person explicitly stated that the "product is killing people". Yes. She said tomato puree that was too sweet for her taste is killing people. This is exactly that the company has done. The right to free speech is not a license to spread misinformation and lies, especially if they transgress on someone else's reputation and rights. I am not saying whether the accusation is correct or not, that's for the person to justify to the court.

2. The person has then refused to accept court summons and be served, which is what led to her charge and arrest. This is perfectly standard in every country that follows some derivation of English Common law.

In my opinion, what is happening here is that people have a tendency to treat online publication as sort of vaporware - something that isn't real and will not have consequences. Like writing on Facebook is somehow less "real" than writing such a thing in the daily newspaper. This is especially true in parts of the world where widespread penetration of online platforms has happened relatively recently. People don't know how to deal with online media or don't even take it seriously. The more advanced countries like the US went through this phase in the 90s...resulting in several scandals about online postings etc. This person is discovering that just because it's on Facebook , she can't make serious accusations about homicide and expect to not face consequences.

Isn't it obvious? At the moment, Threads lacks meaningful content and an established user base like X/Twitter.

Mastodon made some in-roads in some places and seems to be slowly growing. By integrating with the Fediverse, Threads gains access to all that content. On the other hand, Threads maintains a user base through its Instagram/Facebook integration.

If at some point in the future, Threads gains enough traction and the percentage of users using the Threads app and server dwarfs other servers in the Fediverse, the federating can simply be stopped.

There are other ways of blockind ads and tracking - DNS-based blocking etc.

I think you are either intentionally or inadvertantly missing the fact that Firefox is worst right now on the most accessible and ubiquitous computers in the world - mobile phones.

The reason I am not using Firefox is because I want cross-device sync and works badly on Android. I don't mean bad as a browser per se - I mean bad as in speed, battery efficiency. So I use Chrome there and that means I use it on all my other devices as well.

You missed the part where it is a convenience featrure, and separation of concerns. I don't want 10 Chrome Windows on three monitors. I want my email to show with its own icon in the task bar. That's not what happens with bookmarks.

No. Launching an website as a separate chrome process has its advantages - particularly with respect to secure local access, window management and general stability. You could do that in a separate "Chrome"window, but being able to pin a website/webapp etc. is also a convenience feature.

What has effectively happened - if you are using webapps for the most part, your Browser is essentially a VM between the app and the OS. This is just tighter integration with the OS.

So no, its not reinventing bookmakrs. It's more like reinventing JavaVMs, but with native cloud dependency/support.

What a moronic and ignorant statement. No one is saying that Apple should themselves market or advertise for the benefit of the competition.

The point is that Apple is abusing its position as the owner and controller of the App-store to favour its subsidiary service Apple Music, while preventing competitors of Apple Music like Spotify from advertising for their own services. And this is just a derivative of a chain of abuses.

Abuse App-store ownership to favour Apple Music over Spotify.
Fine...just don't use the App-store. Oh wait, Apple also abuses iOS ownership to lock in consumers on the App Store. No sideloading, no other app repos on iOS, remember?
Fine Ijust don't use iOS. Aha...Apple abuses hardware manufacturer status to lock in people to iOS. No other OS allowed. Remember ?

This has nothing to do with "American" companies. This is about how ANY company should be behaving in the European market. And this is a damn good slap for Apple. They haven't just been naughty. They are blatantly and willingly evil and what they are doing is plain market manipulation and lockdown which is the opposite of free market.

Jetbrains is not free. And neither is Sublime Text. And VS Code does better than Sublime Text and maybe about 80% of the way of any Jetbrains IDE. It is VERY good and has integration with Jupyter notebooks.

Things become popular for a reason. At least in this case, where the target audience is developers (not grandma), and the thing is actively downloaded and extensions developed (not preinstalled) , you can't go through your usual bullshit.

Someday, you will understand that everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't automatically a fool.

If only there was a legitimately equivalent competitor to the Chrome browsers that didn't do that. Firefox isn't.

I change to Firefox every 3 months or so to try out. I always run into the following gripes :
1. Android - the browser sucks so hard on Android, I can justify using it there compared to Chrome
2. iPadOS - at the moment it is a reskin of Safari, with a user interface that is less optimized for use on the iPad than Safari itself. So why not use Safari
3. Windows - Edge now has a feature stack that Firefox cannot hold a candle to - split screen tabs, sidebar, synced and shareable workspaces for example

Edge also works decently well on all the other platforms. There is no reason to use Firefox other than some idealogical motive.

Over the next 5 years, there will be an entire generation of people who have never used an optical drive on a computer. I think it is safe to say that optical drives finally gone the way of the floppy disk.

It makes me feel old - I am from the generation who saw the introduction of CDs.

From Spring 2024, the EU laws require Apple to allow alternative App-stores : https://appleinsider.com/artic...
This means that straightforward direct installation of apps will also become possible. So it will be irrelevant if you are not Apple's appstore.

What this Act is supposed to do, is provide *customers* who actually pay for stuff to have an expectation that the manufacturer is obligated to improve the security of the the software they produce.

Since no one pays for Open Source/Free software, this does not apply. I know that the FOSS tries to pretend sometimes that they are a 'market'. They are not. FOSS is free stuff, that enables a services market around it.

Think of it like this : Sunlight is not a market. No one pays for it. It is free. But it enables a market around solar power generation. This is EU act is saying is that if someone is paying for that solar power, the supplier is obligated to provide some minimum level of quality of the electricity being generated.

It is much much cheaper to award a consultancy contract to a team of 3-5 key former employees than to have ongoing employment for 80.

This works because of the empirical fact in that output vs. workers is governed by a power law. Price's law or Lotka's law suggests that in a given domain approximately 50% of the work is done by only root n of the workers, where n = 2 approximately. The trick is of course to identify which ones are the key employees.

And if you RTFA, half the work was already being done in India anyway. This makes it even more attractive.