Which is why I'm confident it will fail spectacularly.

Their devices were running standard software, and the tricks they used were simple.

Although Sky News has verified the methods used by Ms Kubecka and Ms Popovici, we won't give details or name any software used.

It really can only be like one of three things... vpn, proxy or tor-like networks... this is not rocket science (to technical people). And all of those things are legal... so when they say:

"Platforms have clear legal obligations and must actively prevent children from circumventing safety measures, including blocking content that promotes ... workarounds targeting young users."

I'm not sure how they think that's possible... is that not at odds with freedom of speech at the very least? Do they really expect every tech company is going to voluntarily ban e.g. all VPN usage because it can be used to circumvent porn blocks? The entire economy and large parts of society would grind to a halt if that were to happen... for example healthcare would suddenly become massively unavailable because they regularly use VPNs to send/receive patient data.

Basically instead of launching completely new processes for each tab, which uses the (now updated/different) binary on disk, it uses a small secondary process that stays running the whole time the browser is open, and new processes are forked from that one, which makes them all use the same in-memory copy of the old process even after the program is updated.

This only works on *nix because you can't overwrite binaries on Windows that are in use... but Linux keeps the old binary in memory the whole time, so it doesn't care if you replace it, as it won't be used until you restart the program.

So it doesn't actually update anything at all while it's running.

Will this stop the constant crashing I've been having the last several versions?

I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much.

Did you read the article?

I don't see how that even implies that not having a presence in the first place is inherently a red flag...

Does this mean their hundreds of petabytes of pirated content will go away now?

I have not seen any language that suggests that, nor what EFF is saying.

I guess nobody can really know for sure, but in my opinion, if you truly don't have anything, nothing happens, as that's what they want, complacency.

I think EFF is just what-ifing things they could theoretically do in the future... which they do a lot. Not saying EFF is bad, but they do speculate a lot. Sometimes it's a good thing though.

define American-made