view the rest of the comments
Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
Guess I must continue to use the "horrible" Firefox. Oh no. Anyways...
Good old Firefox. You were here before Chrome and you're still the better option.
Say what you want about it, but I have used it for like 15 years at this point. Even donated money to them on several occasions.
You donated to Chrome?
I'd never
Apologies, I've clearly misunderstood your comment.
the true horror of pronouns!
A gentle reminder that Mozilla is actively using user data for AI modeling and Firefox (the compiled browser) is no longer considered Open Source but source available.
Consider Ironfox or, my personal choice, waterfox as compatible alternatives.
No thanks.
I prefer to support the source they copy from. Financially, and with usage.
I would also mention that LibreWolf is a great alternative browser and arguably the superior one if privacy is a top priority. It has served me well.
what do you mean they are using user data for AI modeling? I couldn't find anything, besides they explicitly denying it.
What license did they change to that is not open source?
They left Firefox (the source code) to still be MPL and then changed their compiled code to a proprietary "Terms of Use" license.
The terms of use allow Mozilla to terminate this license "at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore" which goes against a core tenant of OSS of not restricting anyone's ability to use the software.
This has been the case for like 20 years no? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#History
I remember using Iceweasel and other variations back in the day because otherwise they'd be infringing on Mozilla's trademark. I don't actually see anything wrong with this. You can still create a 1-1 clone/copy of Firefox and advertise it as such with a different name. But telling others it is Firefox would not be accurate as Mozilla has no control over it and others may introduce changes that negatively reflect on their brand.