lemminator @ lemminator @lemmy.today Posts 0Comments 42Joined 2 wk. ago
Does it? TIL I always thought it meant "official" or some such, but had no bearing on whether they were elected or not
Install Ganeti, or K3s, and do a lot of things!
My experience has been the opposite. I find a place on booking/priceline/$whatever, then I go to the hotel's website, and it's ~30% more expensive. I'd prefer to go directly through the hotel, but they keep charging me more, which never made sense to me.
I don't think that's even remotely true. While it is true that the USA has it's fair share of racists and sexists, Hillary won the popular vote, and Obama is one of America's most popular presidents.
Harris lost because she ran a terrible campaign, on the coatails of another terrible campgaign, from a terrible president.
Yeah, you were clear. I thought I was being clear when I said that I don't want to fund the "open web" as Mozilla defines it. I only want to fund Firefox development.
"...you’re funding the foundation itself..."
But that's what I don't want. I don't care about the foundation, as it doesn't share my values.
"I’m sure if more people donated, they could actually be incentivized to make such an option available, but they barely get any donations compared to the revenue they make from the Google subsidy, so it’s just unreasonable to expect them to put in that additional effort, especially when the primary thing the vast majority of the money goes to is Firefox staff, development, and related server hosting anyways."
This is the problem though. How many people don't donate because, like me, they don't want to pay for a bloated CEO salary, or unrelated projects? I don't find it unreasonable at all, rather it would help them focus on what their base actually cares about. They have a lot of fat to cut, and this would point out where their resources should be spent, compared to how their resources are currently spent.
Are they going to make as much money from donations as Google gives them? no, but that's a good thing. It'll help them focus.
I feel like my point was pretty clear, but to spell it out: Mozilla is mis-managing their resources. I want to make sure the resources that I give to them only go towards what I consider to be worthwhile projects.
But I don't want to donate to the "open internet" or the non-profit, I want to donate directly to Firefox. How can I ensure that the money I spend gets spent on that and only that?
But that's not donating to Firefox, that's donating to Mozilla, which I don't want to do, because they seem to be wasting their money.
Yeah, donations. And yes, more cost-cutting measures. They need both, to gain more revenue, and to cut costs. They seem pretty bloated to me.
Sure, but can I spend money on just Firefox? or does it go to unrelated activities? I'm OK spending money on FF, I'm not OK paying for the CEO.
"They already take in donations..."
Where can I dontate to Firefox? Not Mozilla, and not a fund that goes to CEO-pay or other expences, but straight to Firefox
2 options:
- Ask their users for money. It's a tried and true system that works for a lot of projects.
- Stop spending their existing money on dumb things that nobody is asking for. A good start would be to cut out the CEO's pay.
Does Firefox do reproducible builds? This bug report makes me think it doesn't (at least for Linux): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=885777
But maybe they do for Windows/Apple/Android?
Well, we don't know that, because we didn't let him try. He did originally poll better than Trump in texas.
A source for what?
Of course she's to blame. She had an easy win, against the lowest approved president we've had and chose genocide and billionaires over winning.
I always find it telling when people blame those who couldn't stomach voting for genocide, instead of blaming the Democratic leadership for running on a platform of genocide.
https://qutebrowser.org/ and Librewolf
It was probably Chick Tracts: https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=0046