Drop back to Firefox a good fifty releases ago and tell me that there hasnâ(TM)t been a ton of improvements. The fact that they are able to build a full web browser with a tiny fraction of the resources spent on Chromium or WebKit is nothing short of a miracle.

Because itâ(TM)s not tiny? 30-50% of internet users use ad blocking software, either as an extension of built into their browser.

Wikipedia does not claim that wind and solar are the sole solutions to climate change, a thing youâ(TM)ve made up in your head. They also have plenty of information about climate change denialism, while noting that there is a near complete lack of scientific evidence supporting their viewpoint. Itâ(TM)s an encyclopedia after all, not a catalog of gut feelings.

Mullenberg was CEO from 2015-2019, long after the bad decisions about the MAXâ(TM)s design were made. Unless you think a guy who was CEO only months before its maiden flight really had that big of an impact on the development process?

The amount of misinformation in this post is pretty astounding.

1. Donations to Mozilla go to the Mozilla Foundation, not Mozilla Corporation, which is who makes Firefox.
2. Pocket does not phone home constantly if you don't use it.
3. Firefox supports more functionality through their webExtension system than Chrome does, I use their TLS bits constantly.
4. Pocket is profitable, it helps support Firefox and not the other way around.

Settings --> Privacy & Security --> Firefox Data Collection, uncheck the boxes.

Is that what qualifies as "difficult and/or time consuming" these days?

Target estimated that the cost of the breach was $200-300M. It didnâ(TM)t bankrupt them, but it was plenty painful.

It affects Chrome and Edge, so I would say there's about a 99.9999% chance that the answer is yes. Yawn.

Thatâ(TM)s a great point, I hope it all works out well for you when the state upstream of yours democratically votes to starting dumping pollution into its waterways.

Youâ(TM)re seeing an increasing number of commercial kitchens moving to induction, because it makes cooling the space so much easier.

And induction is more efficient than gas by quite a decent amount. While there are no power plant losses with gas, there are much fewer losses on the consumer end because it is so more more efficient at generating heat. When it takes a quarter of the time to boil water with induction versus gas, itâ(TM)s hard to not come out on time.

Plus electricity is increasingly made with renewable energy sources, something that will never be possible with gas.

MinaInerz (Slashdot reader #25,726) thinks that WebAssembly isn't any more-or-less secure than Javascript. It's clearly the direction that the web is heading, and if you're that concerned about WebAssembly you should probably disable Javascript, images, videos, stylesheets, certificate parsing, and network requests.

$5.25B is less than cost of Californiaâ(TM)s existing peaker power plants, so that seems like a pretty good deal to me.

They don't have an answer, they just made it up because it makes "their side" look good, regardless of the evidence.

You can have 100 people going to a place and 75 leaving and still have both sides feel like their side of the story is true.

Going back to analog circuits would make cares more expensive and less reliable. Are people on Slashdot seriously pining for the crappy automotive systems of the 1980's?