574
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 116 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I took the liberty of reading the article but I'm gonna say the title is quite... tendentious. Makes it sound like it's yet another one of those FUD / nutjob clickbait that have been coming at the privacy community for a few days with sensationalist titles such as "The CIA will stop funding Signal" (never has been) or "FBI wants to sell Wikipedia" (never has been).

What is going on?

EDIT: Cosmic Cleric has provided the definition of "tendentious", which I have linked.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago

tendentious

ten·den·tious /tenˈdenSHəs/ adjective expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. "a tendentious reading of history"

Thank you. I'm not too proud to say I didn't know this word. And, you saved me looking it up. When I was a kid, my dad got tired of defining words for me when I was reading a book, so he taught me to use a dictionary. From then on, I've read with a dictionary next to me.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Thank you. I’m not too proud to say I didn’t know this word.

You're welcome, and yeah I had no idea what that word meant either, its why I looked it up in the first place.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

New word for me, too. Odd, considering how incredibly relevant it is nowadays!

[-] Xel@mujico.org 4 points 1 year ago

It's a very common word in other languages (Spanish) but my brain didn't even process it correctly the first time I saw it in English lol

[-] dasgoat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Very common word in Dutch too, but the Spanish did at one point rule the low countries before we kicked them out, so.

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to others, which I should have done beforehand. Admittedly when I wrote that post I was thinking of the term "tenacious" which means something completely different, and that distracted me from noticing I was using a perhaps obscure word.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

Your adroit incorporation of the term “tendentious” exemplifies lexical virtuosity. Impressive articulation. Truly seamless weaving of a sesquipedalian polysyllabic term.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Someone call 911, I think I'm having some kind of medical issue with how this post looks.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

We would be euphoria-laden in our willingness to expeditiously mobilize and engage medical assistance should it become categorically imperative.

[-] matter@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Something can't become categorically imperative, a quiddidity such as an essentially categorical property is invariant with respect to time. It either is or it isn't. Per contra, aesculapian aid might become dispositionally required.

[-] Kyatto@leminal.space 6 points 1 year ago

Just kill me instead. Thanks!

[-] Locuralacura@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

The fuck does tendentious mean and how do I even pronounce it?

[-] boatsnhos931@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

We speak murican here friend

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Your adroit incorporation of "adroit " reminds me of mine own erewhile efforts to incorporate "adroit" into my poetical experimentations, which I hope resulted in an execution considered adroit back in the time.

Grateful I am for your bringing of this memory of creation to me.

[-] dwokimmortalus@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Much of it has to do with Firefox's decisions in the past 5-7 years that have made it very unfriendly to enterprise environments. The provisioning tools have gotten progressively more hostile to IT departments.

The US government is also finally moving to more modern systems for authentication and Mozilla has incorporated some particularly poor changes to how the stack is handled that are very unfriendly to IT environments that need to manage credentials for multiple authoritative sources. We had to switch to Chrome a couple years ago because our support cases with Mozilla would on many occasions come back with a response of 'we've made our decision and will not be considering changes'.

Unfortunately, as Firefox kicks itself out of the enterprise market; that's going to cascade to the personal market even further as well.

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

Serious question re the auth part:

Have you tried submitting PRs? Much of the complaints that I see about the development side of Firefox are grounded on the fac that "they won't have this cool thing that Chrome has", ignoring that those things are usually dangerous or are rejected for justified, studied reasons (see: WebUSB). Sounds just about the area where auth would have issues, and it'd be interesting to see what Firefox's actual response was.

Who knows, maybe they're cluing you that you shouldn't depending on Google...

[-] febra@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Well, as much as I like Firefox (and I even donate to the Mozilla foundation), I know for a fact that companies won't pay their programmers money to make PR on Firefox.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I did try, unfortunately, in something as big as a browser it's very time consuming to even fix simple bugs without side effects.

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

True. Browsers are so damn complex these days!

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Original title is worse, I editorialized it as much as I thought appropriate

[-] Wilzax@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You made it express an opinion as if in an editorial report?

Or do you mean edited/revised?

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

edited/revised

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Completely off-topic but I recall a lawyers TV show back in the day where the response to this joke was something like:

"About at the same time you stopped beating yours"

Which would have been interesting to see how that would have worked at the court. Can't remember the show alas, but it was probably The Practice (a late 90s show I think, predecessor to Boston Legal).

this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
574 points (89.9% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
3150 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS