With Firefox, if one sets the dom.event.clipboardevents.enabled about::config setting to false, then websites can no longer block paste. Your pastes will work, despite their trying to intercept and block them.
16,936 karma · joined September 8, 2010
Whether that was a cover story for additional spying by the NASA SR-71 is unknown to those of us without the necessary security clearances.
"Enterprise" is still very much in the camp of "using Oracle". Which is likely how they survive despite being so customer unfriendly. "Enterprise" users are simply using what "the enterprise" purchased and have little choice in the matter.
That is directly the result of the evil pull of advertising. "Logged in" users are more valuable than "non-logged in" users to advertisers (because logged in ones are identified) and so what you are seeing as "nagging" is Shitter (formerly X, formerly Twitter) desperately trying to increase its ad revenue at your expense. You are watching enshittification right before your eyes.
I suspect that eventually, the browser makers that are reluctant to add JpegXL support will do so, even if reluctantly, and so it will eventually "become useful on the web".
The reason why is Adobe added JpegXL as a compression format for PDF's, and as every browser maker wants their browser to also be a "PDF viewer", this means they must include a JpegXL decoder to be able to support PDF's going forward. If they must have a JpegXL decoder anyway, it is not that difficult to also add it as another supported format for the <img> tag.
Not six months or so ago we had multiple different AI CEO's, and other big company CEO's, publicly exclaiming how many jobs AI was going to replace in short order. What did they expect when they told the masses (i.e., the voters) that a majority of them were going to be unemployed soon because of AI? This is simply the folks they told they were going to lay off fighting back to prevent those layoffs from happening.
Couple that with the electricity bill price increases because of the load from the AI data centers and you have a perfect storm that crosses party lines and aligns the vast majority squarely in the "opposed to AI" camp.
So long as the changes produced (to their belief) increases in advertising revenue, they didn't care. More ad money was all that mattered.
But they do not remove the panel cover to look inside, nor do they open up any receptacle box anywhere to look at any of the wiring inside. So they wouldn't know (nor discover) if the wiring job was done well or done in a shoddy manner.
1) not all camera bodies include those fine tuning options in the camera firmware;
2) lenses that include additional buttons beyond that which the camera maker programmed the body to understand can't be tweaked by a body that was never programmed to know the button exists;
3) in the specific case of some Tamron zooms, the Tamron focus fine tuning is at up to five different distance figures, while most camera body focus fine tuning is a single global setting for that one lens;
4) for camera bodies that do include focus tuning in their firmware, they also usually have a limited number of slots for a limited number of lenses. For professionals they very well may own more lenses than the camera has slots, so being able to "tune the lens" via "the lens itself" means each can be fine tuned, even if the camera body cannot store that many different adjustments;
5) an adjustment the camera maker never thought to include (i.e., one example quoted in the repo where the focus ring direction can be reversed) can not be tweaked by the camera body. This is useful to photographers who mix lenses from different makers on the same body as Canon builds their focus rings to rotate one way when focusing towards infinity while Nikon builds their focus rings to rotate in the opposite direction towards infinity.
The problem is that enforcement of breaking the regulation is so non-existent that the criminals just place millions of calls knowing, at most, they might get a minor slap on the wrist that can be budgeted for as a "cost of doing business".
Every single call carried across the phone network is billed, and every hop along the path knows who to bill for their part of carrying the call. The billing system is the method to trace back to the originators, and then apply a fine sufficiently large enough to no longer be a cost of doing business.
But the regulators seem to have no idea that the billing system provides the traceability to find the criminals and then go after them. Instead we get things like stir/shaken that are trying to patch "authenticity" on top of a network never designed with that in mind.
Now, granted, correlation is not always causation. But it sure stinks of something Meta had their lobbyists push just after Zuck's testimony so as to shift the liability risk of handling age appropriate material away from Meta properties and onto operating systems (Microsoft, Apple, Google (Android)).
If the intent were to actually protect children, then this would be what was done.
"Protect the children" is just a subterfuge to get electorate support for voting for the foundation for a "1984 thought crime" style monitoring of the internet.
> Maybe the term has evolved to the point where I’ve been left behind, but I think it’s more likely that the term has been adopted by people who don’t know the history behind it.
The marketing team picked it up as the latest fad to fan, and once marketing picks up a term to use it to advertise, that term is lost forever as to its actual original meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adding_machine
"Subtraction was impossible, except by adding the complement of a number (for instance, subtract 2.50 by adding 9,997.50)."
A few fancier ones could multiply, but they would do so by repeating an addition some number of repetitions. Nearly all output their results on a paper tape much like "store receipts" today, only printed in ink instead of via thermal transfer paper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power#Resistive_circu...
Advertising company (Doubleclick [1]) wants phone numbers to better target ads. No surprise there.
[1] The company currently calling itself Google is not the same Google as yesteryear. In 2008 Google purchased Doubleclick, and what happened is that the advertising rot from Doubleclick ate Google from the inside out. What we have now calling itself Google is actually all the evil that was Doubleclick, only calling itself Google. That's why the Google motto no longer includes "Don't be evil".
At least for my state, the emissions test a car has to pass is whatever it was supposed to have passed when it was fresh off the assembly line. So older cars do not have to pass stricter newer standards that newer cars have to pass.
Now, granted, wear and tear will eventually result in an older car not passing its original standard, but at least the standard it has to pass is fixed, rather than a moving target.