IDK about "legally obligated", but certainly professionally and ethically obligated.

If someone commits a heinous crime, and you want them to rot in jail for 100 years, then you need them to have the strongest possible defence. Otherwise, they might be able to appeal their conviction, or the family of the accused may feel vindictive.

Basically, if you want justice you need the best possible defence.

That's just semantics.

Making a dark joke about a terrorist attack isn't very nice.

Israel sent explosive pagers to hesbollah.

Maybe a call centre operated by map producers, intended more for questions about routes and conditions rather than "take the third left" kind of navigation.

Maaaaaybe. I think the actual advantages over other methods are fairly intangible.

If "surfing the web" required making many very small anonymous payments every hour then yeah, there's advantages. I'll admit that doesn't actually sound terrible - I'd rather pay a few cents to read articles than the current advertising & subscription model.

As a solution for mozilla in isolation though, it would be an over engineered solution with too much baggage. Current mozilla users might have the aptitude for something like this but Mozilla wants to seduce a larger market share which is not people like us.

I would but no one would be interested

There are 2 important factors.

1. Very few people are doing their research and making a logical decision about who will best represent their interests. They will just vote for whoever their friends vote for.

2. The way the president is elected through the electoral college means that a few states are over represented. IDK the numbers but for example, it might be possible to become president with as few as 40% of the votes.

There are certainly criticisms to be made but "dismantling the entire thing" is not the way.

This is the solution.

All names have problems but this one has the least.

This was always the conspiracy. I don't really buy it though. Having firefox' user base default to Google search is worth something.

Because crypto just has such a stink on it.

It may well be a reasonable solution for this specific problem, but still... no one is going to get behind this.

Ok so after a quick read it looks like they bundled some software which allowed third parties to eavesdrop on https traffic with a fairly trivial hack?

I've had lenovo laptop's forever. I could be described as a fan boy. I'd never heard about this. It's never nice to hear that something you're a fan of has problems like this.

I guess the only mitigating factor is that it wasn't intentional on Lenovo's part.

That's not really true.

For a lot of people who are suicidal, a psych ward is precisely the right place for them. There are appropriately trained people to develop a treatment plan, and appropriate facilities to prevent a suicidal person from harming themselves.

I absolutely acknowledge that being taken to a psych ward against your will is going to be traumatic for anyone. I also acknowledge that in some cases the patient might end up feeling worse than they did before they went.

However, I'm certain that you can acknowledge that taking someone to a psych ward against their will is often the only way to prevent them harming themselves.

Sorry mate, this is just plain wrong.

People are there because they have complex medical conditions which require specialist personnel and facilities.

Yes it can be scary and expensive, but it's the best way to manage a shit situation.

You've misunderstood my concern.

I despise Trump and this vapid weirdo.

I suspect that if a MAGA idiot was posting in this way users would be quick to point out that it's not appropriate for a news community.

That said, I don't want to make a big deal out of it. Do what you like.

No it's not. You personally might like it but if it were the consensus people would use it and this question wouldn't be asked every week.

"Fact checking" only those articles you disagree with is editorialising.

I swear these guys sit down every morning and make a list of all the messed up shit they've done, then issue a press release saying the dems did all that stuff.

I hate trump as much as the next guy but I have to wonder whether it's appropriate to editorialise posts like this?

Like linking to an article, and then providing a rebuttal in the post body. I mean it's funny as hell in this case, but would it be more appropriate as a comment?

Mad respect to flyingsquid, prolific poster, commenter, and active mod. No rules being broken of course. I'm just concerned it might not be the right practice for a news community.

If it were a conservative perspective with MAGA editorial I sure wouldn't appreciate it.

What does this business do? Is it just a shitcoin? The archive link only has half the article.