The trouble with benchmarks is that they are often gamed. So while this is interesting, one should remain a bit reserved, awaiting assessments more reflecting the way people use it.

It does have valuable information, but after the changes it will all be behind a wall. Just like so many other sites.

I have to admit, when I first heard Trump going on about yet another web site, I thought "who cares?" and ignored the rest of it.

The truth is though? Government web sites are notoriously horrible to navigate. The general public usually wants to do one specific thing that can take a whole lot of searching on the relevant department's own site -- if they even go to the correct one to begin with.

A one-stop AI powered "index" would add some value, IF it was done correctly. I have little faith it will be, but I'm not so opposed to the idea itself.

Stap is still a piece of shit, but extorting a Russian hacking group is a good thing. It should happen more often.

For someone who considers the MoCA "a very hard test", it's not all that unreasonable to consider an obsequious oracle "super intelligent".

Of course, we could say the same about a slightly brain-damaged labrador retriever, but they aren't setting national and global policy regarding the most likely cause of human extinction over the next few decades.

What they really said is they saw what they estimated to be about a 10% decrease in ability to see faint stars in the night-time skies each year from 2011 through 2022. But this article was written back in 2023 ... three years ago. So why is it "news" on Slashdot right now? And more importantly, is there any follow-up research showing this 10% annual reduction in darkness is continuing?

It stands to reason that as we improve night-time lighting in cities and towns on our roads, this would be a trend. But it also stands to reason that 10% decreases in darkness at night will cease. I would imagine much of what they observed was due to the near wholesale swapping of inefficient incandescent or mercury vapor lighting with brighter, more "white" LED lighting. I don't think there's any real trend of adding more and more lighting?

I kind of agree it's increasingly annoying to find dead space on a titlebar, and I absolutely loathe Microsoft's use of the title bar to stick crap I have never and will never use. I don't search enough to waste half the title bar on a search bar, I couldn't care less who I'm logged in as, and "Saved to this PC" is nothing more than Microsoft flipping us off for having zero interest in automatically saving everything OneDrive.

At the same time, I really do like using the title bar as a tab bar. It's a decent compromise insofar as they're conceptually like mini title bars for each page we have open.

Round controls, however, need to die yesterday. Rounded, sure, but having a full semicircle wasted at each end of a button is just a gratuitous waste of space. "Compact" is fundamentally incompatible with "round".

Am I missing something here? Application Menu -> Settings -> Extensions&Themes -> Themes. You can choose a few common defaults, customize your own, or download thousands of them from addons.mozilla.org.

You're the third comment implying we can no longer apply (or even make) custom themes, yet the linked announcement bluntly states exactly the opposite and implies they're increasing the number of themes available. Admittedly I run ESR rather than the bleeding edge, but we're only talking six months old, not some antique from the late '90s.

You don't need to edit your user prefs to disable dark mode, themes are right there in the main settings.

That said, the vast majority of people using dark mode will consider some purple highlights in dark mode far, far less annoying than switching to light mode.

Personally, I prefer most of my "non-content" screen elements to be low-contrast grayscale and, wherever possible, dark grey window backgrounds. Purple is an annoying violation of that preference, but still beats bright white backgrounds and obnoxious Candy-Crush-like icons / controls / borders by a mile.

Who was telling them that if they treated ectopic pregnancies they might face legal repercussions? Is that what the law actually said?

The way the law is written, if a doctor performs any abortion they can be charged. That is what the hospitals legal department said. In 2024, a woman was told it would be a crime to perform her abortion, so she was left to die.

In 2023 another woman died because the procedure that could have saved her life after a miscarriage was not administered because it could also be used for an abortion.

Just this year, a woman who had previously had two stillbirths due to preeclampsia asked if she should continue with her pregnancy as she was experiencing the same preeclampsia as before. Nope, she was good to go. Until she was found dead in her bedroom from preeclampsia.

But sure, keep making excuses for why women have to die because Republicans don't care about them.

A very slight rounding is useful, as it makes the distinction between one tab and another easier to spot. Currently on my Firefox it's done by highlighting the active tab and putting a small icon at the start of the tab...which also wastes space, but differentiates tabs. (OTOH, the tab labels are already slightly rounded, but the "not currently selected tabs" are so greyed out that the tab margins are invisible. Not ideal. And if they do the same thing with the rounded tabs, there will be absolutely no advantage.)

Actually, they were needed around 1980. But in the last few decades they seem to concentrate on making things worse.

Maybe that's actually a measure of how bad the inflation is.

Do you actually believe they aren't retaining the data? Why?