If you in fact did kill multiple people then sure, but that is a tiny % of people who are locked up. But then, maybe. I think most would prefer life even in that situation.
At least it's usually a costly barbarity for the state, with no perverse incentives. Though I'd argue it's not a dichotomy, and a maximum sentence combined with risk assessments that can extend a sentence beyond the maximum is state of the art.
If you want to save taxpayer money, then you should be advocating for an end to the death penalty. Sentencing a person to death ends up costing significantly more than life imprisonment.
Sure, you could execute them the day after they're convicted. But that would greatly increase the number of people we let the state murder, not to mention the number of innocent people they'd be putting to death. Personally, that's not the type of society I want to be a part of.
Boy, if paying to keep people imprisoned upsets you, wait til you see how much we law abiding citizens have to pay when the state fucks up and locks up the wrong person.
Philly just paid nearly $10 million to some guy they'd wrongfully imprisoned for nearly 30 years.
If justice was about money it would be cheaper to just shoot anyone accused of being a pick pocket, heck the cop should just shoot the accuser twice to make sure his costly time isn't wasted again. Not to forget bill the families for the bullets.
As all government money is fungible from the perspective of the average citizen, and not all of it comes from taxing, you can't really say that "law abiding citizens" are "footing the bill". It's funny how this type of comment always comes into play when it comes to the rights of others. Not projecting this onto you specifically, but often times it comes across as "oh, we can't be fair to people because I have to pay for it! oh no!"
I'm Jewish myself. A more precise phrasing is "both an ethnicity and a religion". Judaism isn't a nationality (there isn't a "Jewish Nation" all Jews belong to - there is Israel but not all Jews are Israelis).
Although there is a lot of both zionist and anti-semitic (different people) arguments that like to confuse them (Jews=Israeli) for political reasons.
I understand what you're saying, but I beg to differ.
Yes Jew doesn't equal Israeli, and from my understanding most non-religous Jews outside of Israel do not aspire to build a Jewish "Home" like Israel (A political entity which will also include a physical territory for the Jewish people), but as a former Jew of faith I know each orthodox religous jew across the world prays 3 times a day and in each and every holiday about the hope to build a Jewish homeland again in Jerusalem with the Temple in it.
With that being said, I think all the religous jews are definitely a nation, becuase they're ethnic group that hope to achive politcal establishment for themselves (or they're not hoping but already happy with what they have).
Nope, [dead] but not [flagged] or [banned] implies that the comment was killed automatically. Remember to vouch for [dead] comments you think shouldn't be [dead].
Because I’m a silly web developer and I like to test on a bunch of different browsers. Current and Dev versions plus a few quirky experimental browsers I have installed just for fun.
Money in the terms of resources. Browsers are huge and complex codebases so maintaining one (even if "just" a fork) is quite expensive.
> How are the many forks/variants of Chromium and WebKit not affected by this "money" factor in the same way
They are, but the main Webkit/Chromium forks are either large companies (microsoft) or companies trying to make money off of their forks (Brave, Vivaldi).
This here is trying to do the exact opposite. Vivaldi has ~50 employees, Brave has 150 and tens of millions in investments. Even if not all of them work on the fork management, that's a lot more resources than a dozen peeps doing that in their spare time.
Google, Microsoft, Apple and Brave, are some of the corporations who fund Chromium/WebKit-based browsers. The ones who fund Firefox (Gecko)-based browsers do not have nearly enough money to dedicate to their own fork.
Chromium is the one with all the forks, right? I don't think "it's a browser, stupid" is the only reason. ...although reading some of the other comments elsewhere, it is a pretty good one. Chromium-based browsers do tend to have some form of corporate support.
>> is the suggestion that FF is too complex to properly fork without full time devs?
How many Chrome forks don't have "full time devs"? A lot of them (Vivaldi, Opera) aren't even open source!
The only one I can think of is ungoogled Chromium which is basically equivalent to this Firefox one in that the actual changes being made are miniscule.
Could you spell out what the contradiction is, here? I said it's hard to fork both browsers, and then pointed out that the only real "community" ones are miniscule patchsets which pretty much exclusively delete code - that even then, the list is only one or two forks long for each browser - and the rest all have multiple full-time professional devs behind them.
The "contradiction", coincidentally the very same reason I wondered if you switched accounts, is your implication that the reasoning for the way things are is blindingly obvious, except for the exceptions obviously, but those are blindingly obvious too. Apologies, I didn't realize the rationale behind your posting; that straightforward explanatory paragraph clearly couldn't have been deployed without all the posturing, first.
Chromium has proper separation of its components (Blink, V8, Desktop, iOS, Android UIs, etc). It's "easier" for a small full-time paid team to detach the default browser UI, implement their own thing and keep the other components up to date.
Examples of this are the Electron Framework [0], Vivaldi, Brave, Opera, Yandex, Edge, etc.
Firefox instead is a nightmare to fork.
They used to have something called XulRunner[1] that allowed to create your own XUL application (things like Seamonkey, Thunderbird used it) thus making it fairly easy to fork Firefox.
After the 41 release Mozilla removed it completely. XulRunner's components were intertwined with Firefox code. Mozilla deliberately killed the easiest way to work their product.
Only light forks like Waterfox, LibreWolf are viable. Hard forks fail or struggle every single time Mozilla releases a new version (SeaMonkey, Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon, etc), lagging behind in features and performance.
Even WebKit is easier to integrate with your own UI (Safari, Gnome Web [2], etc).
Yes? I've no idea what you're implying. All the viable Chromium forks have large amounts of manpower and resources available.
The choice between forking Chromium and Firefox is mainly one of business[0]: Chrome has a >70% global marketshare, adding Edge & co even ignoring Safari it's probably around 80. Since Google also keeps pushing their own stuff, that means forking Chromium gives you much better compatibility guarantees.
[0] though the history of Chromium — and Webkit before that — forks also means there's probably a lot more knowledge floating around about maintaining such a fork, especially since Chromium itself was originally a fork (running concurrently with its source and regularly synch-ing from it, forking a dead codebase or hard-forking with no sync is a different concern)
Yeah, because of the usual open source problem: funding. Brave is funded by venture capital and crypto-crap, Vivaldi by advertising deals and Edge by the infinite coffers of Micro$oft.
Firefox forks tend to dislike associating with any of the above.
Edge, for example, is a fork maintained by Microsoft. It is a strategic project for a multi-billion company. That is not comparable to a fork of your average open-source project.
>But it's absolutely comparable to a fork of Firefox.
It's still not comparable for a fairly simple reason: the list of companies in the world that are as big as Microsoft consists of Google, and Apple, both of whom already have their own browsers.
As for why Microsoft chose Chromium, it's probably a combination of marketshare, the fact that it is a bit more cleanly architected as a result of having a decade less history than Gecko does, and the fact that they have ambitions of making a stripped down version of Electron part of the standard Windows userspace.
It was definitely a strategic business move. Chrome is eating everyone's lunch with marketshare.
Options:
1. Fork Firefox, people install Chrome anyway
2. Fork Chromium, some people realize that it's essentially the same as Chrome and don't install Chrome and just use Edge
Also, especially on mobile, Firefox is an extremely niche browser engine. The biggest browser forks in therms of global user count are actually not the likes of Edge, Brave, etc, but android Chromium forks popular in asia.
After I was caught, I went to live with some students. Paid them in a few beers now and then. There was only one front door key between the four of them. To get it we had to climb up the front of the house. I was nearly 40 at the time, but didn’t mind too much living the student life style.
However, Eventually that kind of thing got to me. The breaking point was realizing that primary school teachers were getting paid more than me. Left for a university management job in Asia.
Most people who criticise X like you have no idea what they're talking about. The parallels you're drawing are childish and indicate an extremely shallow understanding of the issues at hand.
Well you don’t have to listen to me, the X maintainers have said Wayland is the way forward and they’ve stopped developing X as of several years ago. It’s silly this is still an issue.
That’s just bullshit. X is architecturally bad, which makes sense considering that it came from a time when there were no goddamn GPUs at all!
Wayland is closer to the hardware what we actually use, so an implementation can actually be more lightweight, and it cuts out all the legacy shit from X and starts from a sane abstraction.
As an actual X maintainer put it: “ You can only apply so much thrust to the pig before you question why you're trying to make it fly at all”
This doesn’t mean DRM is impossible, it means it’s only available to really big players who can cut deals with Google. Which makes it one of the few parts of the Web API that smaller companies and independent devs can’t use (not that I’d personally want to). Keeping it tightly controlled like that also makes it harder to crack.
