Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

Post by WesolyKubeczek » Mon, May 25, 2020, 7:25 PM UTC

dictationer wrote: post #195

vezycash wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this quote about how the dictator are benevolent in the beginning in their appeals to people's safety needs. Slowly but surely, the people handover their rights and are shocked by the power the dictator "suddenly has." When the chrome team was tightening their grips on chrome, people here hailed the move because some windows programs like anti-viruses, download managers and adware sideloaded extensions.

I like this. We do keep giving power to some system because they "protect us" (Google and Apple in 2010) but there's always a chance that they'll stop caring once they don't need your support anymore. Microsoft is also trying to buy our support by being benevolent, I wonder how long and if that will last.

Post by albedoa » Tue, May 26, 2020, 4:03 AM UTC

stevenjohns wrote: post #516

albedoa wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We see the second half. Your sentence reduces to: > Trademark violations require intent to mislead, or they do not require intent to mislead. You are trying to assert that this makes sense and that the second half makes the first half correct. Neither is true.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve by leaving multiple successive comments threads about the same topic. I will reply to this message and will withdraw after this. —— The sentence reduces to “trademark violations are considered to have taken place regardless of when there is either an intention to mislead or if a customer was unintentionally misled.” If the grammar was poop and you can’t make a good faith rea…

Post by notoriousjpg » Tue, May 26, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

geza wrote: post #157

I definitely feel for the author - the Chrome Extension team has been growing increasingly developer-hostile recently. My own open-source extension HabitLab ( https://habitlab.stanford.edu/ ) that I've been maintaining for the past 3 years is going to be removed in 2 days (got a 14-day removal notice for permissions even though all permissions it requests are used and needed, and every update I try to submit is rejec…

Post by klingonopera » Thu, May 28, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #515

klingonopera wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just going to hook up on your example of the document and the deadline, and state the following: You're assuming a (very) pessimistic scenario (that you likely justify with your experience of IT systems and their bugs, but Apollo 11 had IT too, and got it done, and everyone back). Allow the benefit of doubt that a "software-based" system would only be implemented, if it were superior in such a way, that such a si…

> but Apollo 11 had IT too So did the Mars Climate Orbiter.

Post by albedoa » Sun, May 31, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

stevenjohns wrote: post #516

albedoa wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We see the second half. Your sentence reduces to: > Trademark violations require intent to mislead, or they do not require intent to mislead. You are trying to assert that this makes sense and that the second half makes the first half correct. Neither is true.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve by leaving multiple successive comments threads about the same topic. I will reply to this message and will withdraw after this. —— The sentence reduces to “trademark violations are considered to have taken place regardless of when there is either an intention to mislead or if a customer was unintentionally misled.” If the grammar was poop and you can’t make a good faith rea…