741–750 of 753 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's an extreme method of doing 'light text on dark background', like my guide below http://unexistance.blogspot.com/2014/09/of-firefox-solarize.... in which all background & foreground color are of your choice. been using it for 5 years at least
Thanks, but I do like it to be easily switchable. Some pages expect certain background colors and changing them makes embedded svgs hard or impossible to see. Maybe you can get away with using the solarized theme, but I prefer having a black background... Thanks for this suggestions anyway
heck, I'm using a black background nowadays, trying to mimic blackboard color ha
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> hint -W exclaim_quiet mpv You know how mathematicians get excited by exp(-i*pi)+1=0? This is like that but for all of the things I'm embarrassed about in Tridactyl: - our documentation is not great, particularly of current configuration/possible configurations, hence why the GP didn't know about it - hints don't support pipes - obviously this should be `hint | ! mpv` - hints don't support pipes because of a bad arc…
Hey Oliver! Yeah Tridactyl is great. While I'm not a great JS/TS developer I might be able to offer a couple of pull request for documentation. Is there anything I can help with currently? > 2. This isn't actually true. Tridactyl does override page binds. The reason you think GitHub is stealing a Tridactyl bind is because GitHub steals `/`, but Tridactyl doesn't bind anything to `/` - that's a default Firefox bind! (…
The next big win in documentation is configuration docs, but there's a type doc bug I'm waiting on first before I can merge it.
However, the `tutor`, new tab page, help page introduction and addons.mozilla.org page (stored on repo as amo.md) always fall out of date, so time spent reading through those and adding things that are missing or out of date is always time well spent. The changelog is probably the easiest source of truth to work from.
Thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on the websites. Firefox has long been significantly faster than it was in the Firefox-1.x days, when it was the fastest browser. It's always been perfectly snappy and efficient for hackernews, craigslist, 10,000-line colored diffs in the cgit web frontend ... but popular web sites got many times slower. Chrome enabled web developers to do atrociously inefficient things and just not care. Even today…
I think the issue is less poor coding and resource consumption and more the fact that devs seem to primarily test their website on Chrome. Whether inadvertently or not, the Chrome team hit on a genius way of gaining market share by focusing on dev tools so heavily.
(Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech This is actually not true. For example, it would have been illegal for Mozilla to fire Eich for his donation. This is because political activity is considered protected in California (like gender, race, etc.), so firing someone for making a political statement or for donating to a political cause is illegal. We wi…
Which isn't what happened here. The consequence he faced was that his employees demanded his resignation. He resigned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it's legal. What we're discussing is what justification there is to make it socially acceptable to fire or tell people to resign based on political views.
(Shrug) It's acceptable to me and to a bunch of other people, so that by definition makes it "socially acceptable." I reserve the right not to employ Nazi asshats, or to work for them. That's the upside to at-will employment... and the downside of being a Nazi asshat. In most states, political beliefs do not, and should not, qualify employees for membership in protected classes. Under California law the situation is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One of the two have to go: The CEO, or the employees. Do you want to live in the world where Mozilla fires thousands of employees who disagree with their CEO's view that gay marriage should be prohibited? No, this is a false scenario. Neither of the two have to go. It's totally possible for employees to continue to choose to work at the company even if they don't agree with their CEO's political views. Plenty of ad…
I don't think you understand how big of a problem this was at Mozilla, and for Mozilla employees.
The case that is being misrepresented even now in comments on this post consists of the six Mozilla Foundation employees tweeting that I should step down. They did not work for me. It may be they spoke for some who did work for me, but many on my staff were outraged by their tweets. I had support across a broad spectrum of people inside the Mozilla Corporation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was the CEO. How are Mozilla employees supposed to believe he is going to look out for them when he literally spent money to advance a cause that was harmful to some of his employees and in no way beneficial to anyone. It wasn't like he was just some dude that didn't have people management responsibilities and kept his mouth shut. The decisions he made would impact lots of peoples lives. Mozilla employees were abs…
There exists no universal perspective of what is harmful and what is not. In fact, the notion that prohibiting gay marriage is harmful is nowhere near as universally accepted as your comment makes it out to be. Remember, California passed Proposition 8 (the proposition to ban gay marriage) with a 52% majority in 2008. Eich's views were in line with the majority . Mozilla sent the message that the majority of Californ…
ICYMI, I've posted before on HN about false claims of unlawful harm that keep coming up. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14845509 as a source of links; also for the thread in which it lives, which unfortunately runs to high indentation level before trailing off.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14849041 is worth a read too on the topic of law and harm.
Why does this matter now? Obviously it matters to lots of people (including here in these comments) who keep bringing me up, either to attack Mozilla or to attack me. You can search Twitter and try to keep score -- I think subtweeted sentiment has turned in my favor, but both sides keep going.
My Mozilla exit is a prop in the culture wars, even though I never harmed anyone and am still doing what I've always done: working with people from all backgrounds, innovating via open source and open web tech against the big Internet superpowers who emerge and, due to network effects, end up operating against their users' interests.
It's time to drop the prop and stop fighting. I don't expect everyone to listen, but I'll give it a shot here anyway:
What we need most, on the Web and in the world, is unity against big threats such as surveillance capitalism. Apple and Brave block third party tracking by default. I hope Mozilla will do the same if its search revenue-share deals allow that. In the mean time, if you do choose to use Firefox, you can enable its optional Tracking Protection feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which isn't what happened here. The consequence he faced was that his employees demanded his resignation. He resigned.
Hi, you are mistaken on many facts here. I'll start with this claim. No employees at the Mozilla Corporation demanded that I resign. Six Mozilla Foundation (the non-profit .org with arms-length management and separate board) tweeted that I should step down (see https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/mozil... which fails to note their employer was not the company to which I had been appointed CEO, alth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, you are mistaken on many facts here. I'll start with this claim. No employees at the Mozilla Corporation demanded that I resign. Six Mozilla Foundation (the non-profit .org with arms-length management and separate board) tweeted that I should step down (see https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/mozil... which fails to note their employer was not the company to which I had been appointed CEO, alth…
This is not true. I have friends who were working at Mozilla who tweeted condemning you.
A green handle of "communist_" does not inspire automatic belief that you truly had friends at Mozilla Corporation or know of any such tweets.
Again, if you mean the six Mozilla Foundation employees who tweeted against me as (poorly) reported by Ars Technica (see https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/mozil...), they were not "his employees". They worked for an entirely separate organization from the one I was running.
Back-story: Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit set up in 2003 (I was founding board member, and a co-founder of mozilla.org in 1998 at the start). Mozilla Corporation is the for-profit, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation which exists at arms length to make taxable revenue from Firefox. The two orgs are loosely connected; the Mozilla Foundation is much smaller and all about getting and giving grants.