It’ll be at the hands of whatever jurisdiction the forker is in. It’s not like you can escape governments.

We’ll see, and I’d be happy if it wins!

And yet all the big apps are still using Electron.

Usually the answer is limited resources with unclear payoff, i.e. even with Electron’s success, it’s not clear that there’s room for an alternative in the market, and it’d be a lot of effort to do.

Ah, so it should just be better! I wonder why nobody thought of that yet :P

(Sorry, I’m in a sarcastic mood, but you get my point.)

No, I’m telling people not to suspect anything, because we don’t know anything.

This is all hypothetical

Yes, that is exactly my point: let’s not get all worked up about something where we have almost zero facts. Although:

open source is beholden to western laws and corporate practices

is definitely the case for the Linux Foundation: it’s beholden to US laws. And wake-up call or not, a foundation would always be incorporated somewhere, and beholden to the laws of that somewhere.

Oh geez, this the third reply by the same account… Again, I’m just saying that we don’t know whether the contributors were assumed guilty, or if they have actual ties to sanctioned companies.

I am literally saying the opposite: I am saying that it’s not clear that this applies to all Russians, or just ones that are sanctioned.

No, I’m saying that if the banned people are only banned because they’re associated with the Russian government (/employed by sanctioned companies), then I’m not going to get outraged over the kernel maintainers. I do not expect them to break the law just to die on this hill.

I would get it if he would have simply stated that the Linux Foundation needs to abide by the sanctions

I mean, that’s basically what he said:

If you haven’t heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read the news some day.

Doesn’t sound like they banned Russians in general, just people employed by sanctioned companies.

Anyone who thinks they know what needs to happen for Firefox to regain market share, needs to consider what would happen if someone forks Firefox and makes that happen.

There’s no way that CSS theming is it. And in general, “not doing something” isn’t going to be it, either.

Honestly I wish that was a principle that the internet embraced more. We’re so trigger-happy to be outraged.

I don’t see what this has to do with my comment. I see no indication that all Russians are blanket-banned.

…and we don’t know whether they’re the former or the latter, no? So maybe a little early to get outraged?

I don’t know much about WebGL and WebRTC specifically, but sometimes it’s just inherent to the feature, and it’s literally impossible to implement it without allowing fingerprinting the user.

For example, your screen resolution/viewport size can also be used to fingerprint you. It is impossible to allow adjusting a website to different viewport sizes without leaking those viewport sizes - the only way to restrict fingerprinting is to not offer the feature of using arbitrary viewport sizes (which is what Tor browser does, for example).

Exhibit #17837 why Firefox isn’t “just more hardened by default”.

It’s also not necessarily just because Google wants more of your data (which they do); they may also just use a feature that can also be used to fingerprint you. But since it’s also just useful in general, it’s not disabled by default by regular Firefox.

Well, check out Solid and let me know if you have questions, I have worked with it (and Turtle).

It plays a big role in https://solidproject.org.

That said, there is no way it is feasible to represent the meaning of arbitrary English text in Turtle (or any other RDF serialisation format). There’s a reason the “Semantic Web” concept never really caught on.

Ja de verzekering moet het vergoeden, maar alleen als het gedeclareerd wordt natuurlijk. En aangezien dit er in de praktijk voor zou zorgen dat het niet meer gedeclareerd wordt, gebeurt het dus niet.

Maar dank voor de links met meer context. Blijkbaar vinden we het ook belangrijk om bij het bepalen van hoeveel iemand kon werken voor een arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering ook te kijken naar hoeveel diegene zwart heeft gewerkt, maar dat wordt dan dus onmogelijk gemaakt. Of in ieder geval een stuk minder aantrekkelijk.