“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift
If you couldn’t make bunk
I made small but meaningful contributions to a reasonably well-known project still used by millions of people.
Maybe don’t assume I made bunk just because I have an iota of humility to acknowledge that a hard fork of a modern web browser announced by someone on Mastodon who spent a collective five hours patching main is a pipedream.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tantamount
My point if you didn’t get it is that this has basically the same effect as expressing strong disagreement – inasmuch as it’s extremely likely this won’t see any meaningful usage or development and will quickly fizzle out.
Source: worked two years on a FOSS project vastly less important, complex, dangerous, and time-sensitive than a web browser.
Source 2: Obviousness.
It’s not wrong tho. There’s a new initiative.
Hence my point: announcing “a new initiative” doesn’t denote an actual amount of demonstrated momentum, but it certainly connotes it.
And, so far, they are showing lots more than all the other wannabes and nobodies who complain the same on the internet but don’t deliver.
Dude, it’s a patch on top of main that removes Firefox’s tepid, trivially disabled AI features. What do you mean “lots more”? lmao this is tantamount to a strongly worded letter about Firefox’s inclusion of LLM tools.
“There’s a new initiative” is doing a fuck of a lot of lifting from “someone on Mastodon said they’re going to try”.
YoFrodo, my allegiance is to the city – to urbanism!
Honestly fair. Goodbye.
I’d likely be so continually high on a cocktail of chemicals that I’d be having lively conversations and never fully realize I was the only real person left.
Pretty bold assumption that out of over 8 billion people jumping off a cliff, not one of them would survive in a way that they could rescue themself. (Fuck it, if we’re assuming it’s literally “a cliff”, singular, they’d probably physically have to stop at some point.)
Shaka, when the walls fell and gas was 15¢/gallon.
The perfect number of varieties.
A+, would stick my hand in and sensually squelch the beans between my fingers.
It’s been always baking since the earth’s been quaking.
And hornyposting about beans, yes.
Tesseract has reunited us in our common cause.
Futurism’s are particularly egregious. It exists to get clicks, and I mean in a way that clearly none of its writers give a single shit.
This headline and story in particular are okay enough, but in general, Futurism will take scraps and turn it into “[x person/business/industry our readerbase doesn’t like] is literally shitting its pants and DYING”.
Well, yes. If you didn’t know by now that impeding a federal investigation by destroying records is illegal, then I don’t know what to tell you. (Edit: That said, this was charged under a somewhat different statute. I was trying to answer specifically your question.)
The point in dispute here is that the search was an illegal violation of the Fourth Amendment in the first place, and consequently the wipe proceeding that cannot be prosecuted because the government had no legal right to access that information to begin with – that is, it was always defendent’s to do with whatever they wanted, and they were under no obligation to preserve records.
Edit: I will say I haven’t directly read the defense’s arguments, so there could be more nuance here/I could be outright wrong about the grounds of the argument thanks to the telephone game.
I’d assume based on the specific charge that the hitch the defense is arguing is based on the word:
for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control
If the Government has no lawful authority, then no crime, it’d seem.
If you know about this and continue to pay for it given viable alternatives, yes, you knowingly, willingly are. They wrote a whole spiel justifying it, so I’m going to point it out.
Flamman reports that [Berntsson’s] was the largest single private donation to any Swedish party in 2025, and on its own represented 72 percent of the [neo-Nazi] party’s income for the year.
Sorry, someone who’s knowingly funding the neo-Nazi party in Sweden – not because they have no other choice but because they don’t fucking care – doesn’t get a vote on what is and isn’t woke moralizing authoritarianism.
Fuck crypto shills. Fuck neo-Nazis. And fuck you, you whiny little Nazi-funding bitch.
“Reeee, a community vote that says we shouldn’t spend community-donated money hosting pump-and-dump projects that exist to put money in the hands of the wealthy far-right while destroying the environment is authoritarianism!!1 You should be forced to host my trash at your own expense; stop trying to control me, woke moralists! Stop caring about things and help me destroy the world!”
Why did they make her look like she’s about to terminate the waiter at Chili’s who brought her soggy fries?