Is geolocation still using Google Location Service or has that been replaced with a different provider?
UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
181–190 of 441 posts
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love to. But as a recent and former Firefox user, the performance just wasn't there. Both Edge and Chrome are significantly faster. I'm hoping electrolysis helps greatly in this regard. I'll be happy to switch back.
Just out of curiosity, what are you using the browser for that one is noticeably slower than the other?
Chrome just feels considerably faster.
Page transitions, time to render, fast JS engine. Firefox just feels clunky in comparison, sadly.
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't police people's thoughts/feelings. Those people both exercised their freedom of speech (via donations). Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech.
>You can't police people's thoughts/feelings. Cheers, Of course not. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech. Fair point. Riddle me this: Should we force a baptist cake company to bake a cake for a gay wedding, force a Jewish bakery to bake a swastika cake, and force a Nazi bakery to bake a Jewish cake? If not one. Why should we force one and not the others? If you think the government…
> Which people?
Reich and the guy from oculus who supported the trump group.
> Riddle me this
What is a "cake for a gay wedding" compared to any other kind of wedding cake? Is there same-sex marzipan I'm not aware of?
A baker refusing to bake a cake for someone because they're gay/Jewish is discrimination, and bigotry/racism (religious discrimination if you consider Judaism purely a religion and not an ethnicity/race)
Refusing to bake a cake for neonazis would also be discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake of a swastika isn't exactly the same thing - a swastika is imagery associated with one of the greatest war crimes of recorded history.
Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business.
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. He wasn't imprisoned, nothing was done to him with the force of law. He just had/has unpopular views and accepted the consequences of holding those views. I struggle to see how the world could be arranged such that we could all hold forth with controversial views, but such that there was never a consequence to holding those…
So you want a view where everyone with a controversial view to loose their job? And who decides what a controversial view is, or if it is or is not controversial enough to lose their job? In the end, I don't think one's views outside of the workplace should necessarily relate to their work performance. Eich was close to a public figure, that doesn't make the witch-hunt any better.
I don't want a world where "everyone with a controversial view" loses their job, but neither do I want one where no view is controversial enough to incur consequences.
If I had a coworker who habitually made racist statements, for example, and I liked my job, I'd want them to lose their job. That kind of work environment would be quite unpleasant for me and probably a lot of other people.
To generalize, I have no problem saying I want to live in a world where employers feel comfortable firing racists who openly air those kind of distasteful remarks. (I didn't say, "I think all racists should be unemployed," mind you.)
What constitutes "controversial enough to merit consequences" and what those consequences would be (i.e. the world as we now have it), that, I think, there'll never be a single set of rules. It'll always be up to contemporary society, the employer, etc.
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#185Just as a post about Googles next generic Whatsapp-clone (with x-size-larger emojis) will get some 500+ upvotes, so too will a post like this get upwards of 200 votes. The HN community really is polarized ( or so it seems ) about these data-harvesting companies and issues like privacy/transparency. My thought then, is which group is larger here (privacy-aware vs. GooAppFace )
I haven't seen a discussion with that many downvotes in a long, long time. Downvotes for no apparent reason.
Either there are a lot of Google employees here on HN, or a lot of Google fanboys. Or both.
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. This is a very disingenuous way of describing it. More proper way to describe it would be that a group of political activists put pressure on Mozilla to fire Eich because of his political views, for political reasons, and Mozilla as organization caved. There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his…
"There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job." I don't know if that's true. I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla, but I'm 100% it's a non-zero number. They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8. I couldn't say whether they did, being neither gay nor a mozilla employee, but I could imagine it…
>I could imagine it might make them (gay employees) uncomfortable,
Nobody likes being uncomfortable, perhaps having gay employees made Eich uncomfortable too. But I don't remember hearing about him forcing anyone out of the company or discriminating against anyone under any circumstance.
To prevent his employees from feeling uncomfortable should the government allow Eich to stop hiring gay employees?
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, support for older computers is a huge plus. My 2008 iMac is nearly half a dozen Mac OS versions behind, but I can still get the latest version of Firefox. Safari and Chrome stopped updating years ago. From a security perspective, it's Firefox all the way. I also happen to use Firefox as my daily driver on my main laptop, largely due to the Tree Style Tabs addon, which I have not seen a decent substitute for on C…
From a security perspective wouldn't you be better served by having an up to date OS?
If I could reliably run a newer OS on an 8-year-old iMac, I would. But since I can't—and because the only thing I use the machine for is web browsing—the relevant question is which browser will be the safest.
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job." I don't know if that's true. I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla, but I'm 100% it's a non-zero number. They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8. I couldn't say whether they did, being neither gay nor a mozilla employee, but I could imagine it…
"He resigned of his own volition..." Yeah, I'm sure he just up and decided to resign with zero pressure from political insiders and the flash mob causing outrage. That's probably what happened.
I for one commend Eich, for putting on his big boy pants and owning the consequences of his actions.
He held an unpopular view, acted on it, and people weren't happy with him. Far better to step down and let the organization right itself, than to try and hold onto his position and his retrograde views simultaneously. Shows real class.
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
95% probability that was "voluntarily step down or we'll fire you."
Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars. And I don't believe that's a fair thing to say with zero evidence to the contrary. Eich was a person that could have made the entire situation disappear in an instant by making a (completely meaningless given their history) matching donation to the HRC, and issuing a short post apologizing for his actions. Sure, many would see right throug…
> Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars.
I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign. You can differentiate I guess between "You see which way the wind is blowing, better do what needs to be done" and "Resign or we'll fire you" but that's really a distinction without a difference and would seamlessly segue into the other state, I expect.
> but it would completely deflate the opposition in an instant
Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob?
Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. This is a very disingenuous way of describing it. More proper way to describe it would be that a group of political activists put pressure on Mozilla to fire Eich because of his political views, for political reasons, and Mozilla as organization caved. There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his…
He resigned, stating that it's because he "couldn't manage effectively". Basically: the staff didn't respect him. As I said elsewhere, if you can't get yourself out of a situation like that, you probably don't have the chops to be CEO of the organisation anyway.
Women resign everyday "because they can't manage effectively" when, if fact, it's harassment.
You could justify any discrimination with "he quit, that was his choice". Today the discrimination is against someone who held a political opinion some day in his past. Or should I say "in his/her/its/Apachehelicopter" past as to not assume their gender and not condemn my future ability to be CEO?