Mixed feelings.

On one hand they are responsive and present, that’s already rare.

On the other they don’t know how their own software works, that’s concerning. But can be excused if it’s say a framework.

This is a core problem with federated software.

It’s EXTREMELY high cost compared to centralized models. The cost per user is through the roof, and larger instances (Which are still absolutely miniscule on the web) can barely stay afloat with their costs.

Why?

Yeah ofc they are chasing the buck.

It’s either they find alternatives revenue streams or we no longer have Firefox as a viable alternative anymore.

Browsers development is crazy engineering heavy, and thus, expensive.

It’s a shitty situation all around.

Yeah it’s a catch 22.

They either fail to get a big enough use base because their core users are not enough and they fail from a lack of funding.

Or they try to follow trends to increase their appeal and user base, and annoy their core users.

Most users don’t realize that Mozilla is doing what Google is doing with Chrome with an engineering team 1/4 the size of the chrome team. And that the grand majority of their costs are engineering related.

Browsers are expensive, and Mozilla needs to find revenue streams to pay for it.

Contact centers, software development, automation, images and video analysis, data analysis, semantic search, entity recognition, advertising, misinformation campaigns, social media, security scanning & automation…etc

Many of these are cross-cutting across many sectors, some of these are sectors you don’t think of as they are driven by government entities.

And many of these have boring quiet tools and integrations that you don’t hear about because they “just work”.

You only hear about the shit that doesn’t work. Not the shit that does work.

Edit: inb4 a reply of a narrow use case or shitty implementation that, obviously, doesn’t work, which I already called out as a bias.

To be clear, it only wildly fails to meet expectations in sectors that you hear about.

It’s most definitely medium expectations in sectors you don’t hear about because news and social media have a huge negativity bias because that gets views and engagement.

If we want to fight this scourge, we need to be more informed about it.

You can thank walled gardens like Discord for that.

Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?

If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.

And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not

Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.

If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.

If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.

Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?

If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.

So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?

Essentially everyone’s a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.

Police are to society like HR is to workers.

They are not there for you, they are there to serve and protect their masters and enforce their masters will against the rest of us.

When in fact the crime was actually just not being rich

We combat this with, funny enough, AI code review.

Much MUCH stricter structural, consistency, quality, and discovery standards on code through rules and docs. Well defined expectations, stricter testing standards…etc Then let some agents loose on PR review and they catch all sorts of problems. Especially with other AI slop.

Coincidentally, the process of doing all this actually reduces the sloppiness of the slop that we receive, as the AI tools writing this code consume these rules before generating code.

Guaranteed the software in many of these printers is going to require an always online connection and is going to be baked with DRM in the near future.

It’s not about firearms.

It’s about controlling what you can 3D print.

When your 3D printer has to connect to a third party service to check if it’s allowed to print what you just sent it. That’s a clear vector for companies to enforce IPs.

Printing a replacement part for your appliance? Sorry, they’re blocked.

Printing parts to repair part of your vehicle or snap something back on? Sorry, that’s banned.

Printing something that resembles the intellectual property of any other company? Sorry, that’s banned.

Can’t have you cutting into the profits of corporations by self-servicing and self-repairing.

Also a mass surveillance device to produce surveillance of what people are 3D printing and report it to a central authority.

Here’s the thing. This isn’t about banning weapons. It’s about controlling access to IPs and preventing right to repair.

A forcibly Internet connected online. Only 3D printer that has to first check a public database to see if it’s allowed to print the thing you just sent is most definitely going to be used to block you from printing parts to fix your appliances or devices.

And definitely going to be used to provide copyright protection and blocking to IPS of large corporations and companies.

deleted by creator

Sure they can. Because what are you going to do financially ruin yourself in a lawsuit you’re going to lose against Microsoft or some other mega Corp who doesn’t give a shit about GPL licencing?

If it’s not enforced with teeth then it doesn’t matter anymore.