s/whom/shim

Without Mozilla, Firefox stands to become another PaleMoon. Quaint, but doesn't support modern web standards and some sites (like GitHub) already don't bother to whom for old standards like Promises.

I don't need the Mozilla branding, but I sure as hell want their expert engineers fully dedicated to this to be able to compete with chrome so it doesn't become the next ie6.

Thanks for the clarification. I was really unsure on the semantics of 3d vs doon's sprites and faux 3d, but now I'm all better. It's like your powers of explanation are revolutionarily altering.

So I could, as you say, look around me? 360 glorious degrees? And I also remember up/down with a mouse, even if autoaim had to take care of pesky daemons on a different level.

must have been some good 'shrooms I was on when I managed to look around me in Doom 1 & 2

where's the freaking article?

Now this shit. What's next? No audio without a flaky, unnecessary daemon?

Maintained by a team of accountable people. This was always one of the reasons a decent Linux distro was more secure than an equivalent Windows machine - because your packages came from a verified source. The concept of snaps makes things more convenient - for everyone, including malware authors. But, you know, so convenient.

Cramming the titlebar full of fuckwittery makes window movement difficult for most users (most don't know about [alt]+ modifiers in *nix or tools like AltDrag for windows).
Cramming the titlebar full of twatmimicry requires that the titlebar be made huge to accommodate UI elements that should have been in the app -- meaning the content area is diminished (aka: those elements could have just been in the app) and apps which don't have asshattery in the titlebar get a fat bit of obtrusive system chrome to annoy the user.
Requiring that the app toolkit actually take over the rendering of the titlebar, as these GNOME knuckleheads want, flies in the face of paradigms such as separation of responsibility (that's what the fucking window manager is for, dimwits -- the app shouldn't be dealing with moving itself about or maximising, minimising, zooming, zooting, shading or pooting) -- but even more fucking heinous is that people who set their desktops up to look a way that they like (say, with ultra-pink bordering, whatever floats your parade float), get an extra giant "fuck you" by some remote designer with ambitions to get their name in a book somewhere.

I say leave the titlebars alone. It's enough that browsers want to collapse titlebars, making overlay apps like WinAmp and audacious, which used to be perfectly useful, more of a mission (and thank goodness I can override that browser dimwittery and force a titlebar in KDE, so Audacious still has a home!), but now GNOME wants that to be every fucking app? No. No, no, no.

Of course, it will happen though: GNOME developers stopped listening to their users long, long ago.

That's why the titlebar has to become at least twice as high as it used to. Because the window content isn't as important as whatever fuckwittery is being crammed up the top there.

Yes, it's way more convenient to use [Alt]+[mouse button] actions to move and resize windows (use AltDrag if you're on Windows; BetterTouchTool does a piss-poor version on macos), but most people don't know about those tools and the window title-bar has been the "grab me to drag me" target since, well, forever. I'm with you on this -- the titlebar should be left the fuck alone, altered only at the user's discretion.

Having just recently gone through the interview process and providing links to my GitHub account (as well as respective npmjs / nuget), I found that it wasn't necessary to do any "developer assessment tests" or provide any samples tainted by crappy work done by others. All the crappy work in there was my own, along with some stuff I don't hate.

(If you don't think that you wrote crappy code at some point, you're either not learning or you're simply deluding yourself.)

I don't have a beef with Ruby (other than that it looks like someone wanted Perl but realised that Python was saner). Javascript is accessible. It's also targetable, so you can use "superior" (my choice of discriminator) languages like Typescript to "get there". Node.js offers a low-hanging branch for people to "get shit done" -- and it does so well, imo.
Ruby just never grabbed me. It's esoteric, strangely unmalleable, and breaks from version to version -- which may be a good thing (in that the maintainers aren't bound by backward compat) -- but it's a negative as a noob.

Speed isn't everything. Maintainability, "grokkability" -- these are king. Code isn't for compilers -- it's for co-workers. What JS lacks in "super-awesomeness" (and it does have flaws, no arguments there), it makes up in readability and accessibility.

Node all things! (:

And bear in mind that I'm (probably) one of the demographic he's referring to. I have an autistic child and I understand some of his world because it's "natural" to me -- being conscious of his world has opened mine, even though I never had a formal diagnosis.

So a dude dares to have an opinion and people lose their shit over it.

Long story short, it's another io.js and everyone will carry on as per normal. If anything relevant is contributed to the fork, it will eventually be merged. Whatevs.

I can see this being something a person in the first world might imagine could happen within 8 years, if everyone hopped on board. But in developing countries? Even "second-world" ones like my own, South Africa?

Not a chance. Simply buying an EV for personal use here is both risky (because of the lack of charging infrastructure coupled with shorter ranges and many people needing longer ranges) and expensive (the Nissan Leaf, for example, costs about three times more than a similar small petrol vehicle) -- if you can even buy one (the aforementioned Leaf was (and probably still is) only a vehicle available on specific request, not in showrooms anywhere, mainly because the company doesn't want backlash from a consumer base that they feel will be confused and dismayed by the lack of infrastructure).

This vision *might* be something to aspire to within 3-4 decades in Africa. Even then, fossil fuels will still be used by people with functioning vehicles for as long as the fuel can be bought. The author also completely glosses over "petrol heads" (ie enthusiasts) as well as low-consumption fossil-fuel based vehicles (like motorbikes) -- again often the domain of hobbyists although staple transport for many.