bluebarbet

Indeed. Even easier: complain on the article's Talk page. Somebody else may then do the work for free.

The average person has absolutely never heard of X11.

ITT: a disappointing number of low-effort drive-by comments responding to the headline alone.

I'm glad we all agree (i.e. you, me, and the bot you're replying to).

>LaJolla

*Jolla, pronounced yolla. It's a Finnish word. Maybe a bad choice given the geography of tech.

That assumes that you never visit a new site. Indeed it's why I think twice before clicking links to new sites. Honest question: Are you happy with the current state of affairs, really, and just waiting patiently for all the world's websites to decide to comply with EU law so that we can have a usable web again?

That's exactly what I do. Or rather I just mash whatever is the nearest button to smite the banner. "Refuse", "Accept", who cares? I'm blocking user-side anyway, as the web was designed for. This whole situation is completely dumb and unnecessary and makes me furious. The EU Commission should have known better.

PS: Using a Chromium-based browser would be like begging to surrender what's left of the software freedom that I just described.

In a public toilet? Not happening. Back to square one.

First, I'm not "praising" anything other than choice on the part of publishers and users. If DNT is set to 1 then a publisher should be free to withhold their content. If everybody sets it to 1 then they might well choose to make some compromises. Or not. I don't care. Just make the banners go away.

Excellent analogy which I'm annoyed I didn't think of myself.

Echoes of America's gay wedding cake case. In the US this would presumably be struck down as "compelled speech", and rightly so IMO. People refuse to pay for journalism and now publishers are prevented from allowing them to consent to pay with their personal data. They can't win, and yet we need journalism.

The solution to this whole thing has been obvious since the start: Put the power where it belongs, with the user agent (browser), by making the Do Not Track signal legally enforceable.

I'm very pro-Brussels but they've made an absolute hash of this whole thing. Cookie banners are ruining the web, which is the only open app ecosystem we have.

Doubtful that it's illegal, they have lawyers. Hard to say it's unethical either given that there is a clear option to pay instead of be tracked (which is in any case trivially defeated by an ad-blocker). For centuries until yesterday people paid for journalism like they paid for any other service.

There's no reason to think this (silly) opinion piece is sapping the work of their investigative staff. In an attention economy it might even be drawing eyeballs to it.

That's great to hear. I did Mallorca by ferry once, from Barcelona. I've also got to Tunisia, from Palermo. It's surprisingly easy and quick, the main issue is to make sure your documents are strictly in order because the Tunis port police are, let's say, more corrupt than their counterparts at the airport.

As for next summer's eclipse, I recommend you forget Tunisia and just go to Tangier, opposite Gibraltar! It's a quick hop on a catamaran from Tarifa. Morocco is good value and much better set up for independent tourism. And Tangier is right on the line of the eclipse, from memory it will be a full 4 minutes there! Should be quite special if the clouds stay at bay.

Flying is a completely unscalable form of transport. One scientist has calculated the marginally sustainable lifetime quota at "4" long-haul flights.* If you or I are flying and the climate is still livable that's because most people in the world have never got on a plane. If all 8 billion people did it to view eclipses even "once or twice in their life", the impact would be massive.

My arguments are "easy"? What's even easier is to blame politicians, and corporations, and systems, and basically anyone and anything but oneself. In the end we're all in this together and every action will count.

*https://www.lechotouristique.com/article/quota-de-4-vols-par...

I was rather talking about the multiple tons of carbon emitted for the purpose of one person's 40-second esthetic experience. Disappointed that here we are in 2026, the world is burning before our eyes, and yet still almost nobody is ready to accept the slightest constraint on their personal choices.

>Do it, worst case scenario you've seen more places in the world!

There is a cost to be paid - somewhere, by someone - of mindless travel. I know this is not a popular position but it's true.

I would correct your advice to: "Do it if you are not too far away". Otherwise enjoy the photos. The real thing is not so very different. I speak from experience too.

>Totality is unbeliveable. You have the urge to start a religion.

Meh! This is what I'd heard and what I was hoping for (though certainly not counting on). In the end it was little more than a beautiful sight. A genuinely stunning sight, no arguments about that. But there was no "eerie wind". The birds and insects did not "go crazy" (they continued chirping as if nothing was up). The experience did not move me metaphysically. But again: a very beautiful sight indeed.

The trick will be to go to Tangier, on the other side of the strait. It's a 40-minute ferry ride, I did it a few months ago.

You mangled your joke. Here it is: "The sun never sets on the Bri... BBC"

If you spend a year in prison then the time will pass incredibly slowly, but in retrospect (this is what prisoners usually say) the ordeal will seem quite short. Conversely, if you spend the year furiously partying or traveling or trying new adventure sports then the retrospective memory will be full to the brim, but the year itself will pass in an instant.

It all seems quite logical to me. There's no negotiating with the passage of time.

Came to the same conclusion. With primary email I do not need multiple points of failure. The optimal solution is a contractual - paid - relationship with a single reputable email provider. There are a bunch of them.

Indeed, and Bit.ly has nothing to do with Libya, nor Lemmy.ml with Mali (both failed states). I posit that domain hacking is an ugly, shortsighted, unserious habit that we should drop.

What does this project have to do with Serbia? Are the developers in Belgrade?

>:)

Slightly off-topic, but I call this the Inadvertent Snark Smiley

Presumably there are other stories of linguistic mishap that resulted in 2 happy people and a friendship or marriage. You got unlucky.

The last sentence: parse error

The state-held stakes are mainly French, German and (less) Spanish. The UK taxpayer currently owns 0% of Airbus, though the UK gets the business of building wings and landing gear.

Agreed. All the more reason to do what we can to make things better than they otherwise would be. Outcomes are never black and white.

With this attitude you can expect uBlock Ultra-Lite and then uBlock Nothing in future. Mozilla is the only remaining obstacle to stop big tech from deciding everything about how the web is rendered. If we don't support Firefox we will get what we deserve.