Wonder why you are getting downvoted as this is a perfectly legitimate point. Are they just not in Europe or something?

Or who knows, they really could be in the Vativan, stranger things have happened. But I don't know why they would mention those circumstances without qualification that they are special circumstances. Kind of burying the lede there.

CIA starts pushing for regime change

And this is your reason why Biden could have restored abortion? Just trying to make sure I'm following how this connects to the original point.

The comments in this thread are completely insane. Nobody remembers anything, so let's check in on the history of pardons:

Bill Clinton pardoned actual criminal Marc Rich.

George H.W. Bush pardoned actual criminals associated with Iran Contra.

George W. pardoned Scooter Libby for obstructing a CIA investigation.

Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio who did racial profiling in contempt of court.

Trump is about to pardon everyone from Jan 6th.

Ford pardoned Nixon and Andrew Johnson pardoned basically the entire confederate south.

So if you're going to stand here and say that Hunter Biden's pardoning is a singularly unique, precedent-setting moment in American history signalling the downfall of democracy? I'm going to hand you a bouncy ball and some orange slices and tell you to go play in the corner. You are not a serious person.

Edit: And for the dipsticks here who think a "pre-emptive" pardon is new... Ford's pardon of Nixon was pre-emptive. So you're only like 50 years and 3 months out of date on that talking point. Oops.

It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate.

I think there's an important caveat here. Yes, it's not a democracy, but I don't think stirring up a fuss is as easy as citing various wiki editing policies and starting arguments. If you invoke them frivolously you aren't going to succeed at making edits.

You can't for a number of reasons. As other people have said this catastrophically underestimates the complexity of maintaining a code base for a browser.

they’re often 3–5 years behind other browsers in implementing new web standards

I don't even think that's remotely true. My understanding is that it's on the order of a few months to a year, and it relates to things that are negligible to the average end user. They are edge case things like experimental 3d rendering. The most significant one I can think of is Webp, but they resisted adoption for principled reasons relating to Google's control over that format and aggressive pushing of it, which is a good thing not a bad thing, and an important example of how rushing to adopt new standards it's not necessarily just a sign of browser health but also an anti-competitive practice intentionally pushed by companies that have money to throw around for that purpose.

You’re right about the fact that building an engine is hard, but Socraticly speaking, then why are there so many blink-based browsers and so few gecko-based ones? The answer is because blink is easy to embed in a new project and gecko isn’t.

Okay, that's an interesting point. I mean, there are forks galore of Firefox so I'm not entirely sure I understand. But certainly chromium-based browsers have been getting more traction.

But wasn't the original point something about how hard it is to make a browser?

And if I have this right you're suggesting that it would be achievable for Firefox to make an accessible browser tool kit but they're not due to ulterior motives?

I'm not sure I understand that, either in terms of motive or just impractical terms what it is you think they're doing to make it hard to develop.

Hold on, why are we talking about this like it's something that's not happening? There's all kinds of forks of Firefox.

Mozilla does not look any reliable

People keep saying this, but why? Because if it's anything like what people have been saying in these Lemmy threads, good god.

Found the one sane comment in this entire thread.

Google may or may not stop paying Mozilla as part of the antitrust scrutiny. I have no idea if there's actual reporting to this effect, or any form of legal analysis suggesting this is the most plausible outcome. If anything, antitrust scrutiny might lead to this funding being more secure and more robust.

So this might not happen, but this whole threads carrying on like it's a fait accompli.

Yeah I don't understand juxtaposing these as though it's one or the other.

I used it to help me create a level 10 DND character for a one shot and it was great for that

I bought the whole battle chest back in the early 2000s (well my parents did for me). I consider those to be part of Diablo 2 broadly speaking