This was a longstanding fediverse complaint, which was quite remarkable to me. It was described as a "missing" feature even though you never had this ability anywhere else let alone the fediverse.
If you get a new email address, it doesn't bring your contacts or your history of emails with you. If you make a new twitter account, same thing. And of course, don't even think about trying to port, say, your facebook stuff into a youtube account. But if the fediverse can't, then it's a dealbreaker.
If you truly want to channel the limitless depths of human creativity, give a Comment Section Skeptic (TM) every fediverse feature they say they want. Then wait and watch as that creativity goes into action, as [insert new feature] is now the new dealbreaker. It is and always will be an endless game of whack a mole.
social hierarchy studies have primarily been done on lobsters and wolves
I'm skeptical. I'll grant you wolves, but even then, wolves I feel are no more or less studied than a bunch of other species which are subject of extensive interest, especially primates, dolphins and orcas, but also lions, hyenas, meerkats, bees and ants. At least those are all studied well enough that we have plenty to pick from.
I appreciate your point though that its ideologically driven anyway and that it's all moot and 100% agree.
It wouldn't even matter if it was "right". The idea of looking to wolves for models of ideal human behavior is wrong for like 17 different reasons, even if it were technically true as a description of wolf behavior.
P.S. why do AlphaBros specifically look at wolves, or lobsters, to instruct us on social hierarchy? There are so many other animals, those seem pretty random choices. And pretty far afield from humans. Wouldn't you at least want something more proximate to us humans on the evolutionary tree? Heck, why not just use humans as a reference point?
And the original concept, as it pertains to wolves, is evidently not a thing. So if we're just saying things, the software metaphor is as good as any other.
Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances
So I went ahead and read that article and goodness gracious, does anybody actually read these links??? Because that link is a complete nothingburger. It's a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal. But it's not, it's just a big word salad that is too long to read, so nobody will bother.
The most significant charge is (1) that the CEO makes too much and (2) the author doesn't like that they contract out work to consultants who think diversity is good. And everything after that is LESS significant.
Every point made, so far as I can tell:
Have assets worth $1.1 billion as of 2021
Mozilla spent less on "expenses" from 2021 relative to 2020
Revenue went up over the same time
A lot of revenue was from royalties (e.g. agreements for default search)
They disagree with the wording on a donate form about whether Mozilla "relies" on individual donations
The CEO made $5.6MM
They pulled out one expense, which appears to have been training/education relating to social justice topics
They pull out a few more individual expenses and weren't sure what they were.
This isn't secret documents being handed to Deep Throat in a dark parking lot. There's no smoking gun, no smoke, just a PDF with ordinary tables of expenses and revenue, and consultants who did diversity training. If that's shady then, get ready to be mad about every non-profit ever.
You've been wrong literally every step of the way about everything you've said and you still want to do this?
The data referenced in the report was recorded from 2021. Your link requires a login so I can't see what it says, but if I was as much of a wreckless 💩 poster as you, I would just say securitytrails is fake and just making everything up and say "nobody cares".
Okay, the next step in the playbook is "no one cares". I don't know, I think online disinformation has emerged as one of the major international issues characteristic of our time and will go down in the history books. So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that no one cares.
I'm sorry that calling you out on your 💩 means I'm a debate bro. But the flip side of the same coin is that you're the one spewing the 💩💩💩.
You started out by saying was no evidence, except there was. Now you've moved the goalposts and are debating the nuances of the evidence instead of saying that none was presented.
You derailed with whataboutism, you made a blanket generalization based on an unrelated story. Are you just going down the playbook, one derailment tactic at a time?
Five posts from now you will be saying "well yeah, maybe they proved the IP was from Russia, but the guy from Russia generated a fake site with 17 fake authors because he cared so much about journalistic integrity!"
So in your opinion is DC Weekly (mentioned in the article) in fact a legitimate american news source? I want to understand more about what specifically they are projecting.
Go ahead and make your own thread about those if you like. I don't understand why you would bring them in to try and change the subject in this particular post unless you're purposely whatabouting.
Please even just read so much as one paragraph of the article and post anything related to that, anything at all. I don't feel like that's asking too much.
Yes and no. That story was bad for a reasons specific to that story that were uncovered and sourced from other credible reporting. You can't proceed from that to a blanket generalization over everything else in New York times reports without any additional supporting evidence.
Also it's sourcing and quoting other sources, so you'd have to explain if you believe that the New York times made up those sources.
I mean if you are looking for a serious answer, it's this. You may be able to find equivalences between US and Russian media, at the level of one instance for one instance. What you can't find is an equivalence in magnitude. For every offense you find in the U.S., you can find the same in Russia but ten times as much, and ten times worse.
And to me, a test of whether you're a serious person is whether you have the information literacy to understand that kind of distinction instead of whatabouting and Gish galloping it into the ground.
This was a longstanding fediverse complaint, which was quite remarkable to me. It was described as a "missing" feature even though you never had this ability anywhere else let alone the fediverse.
If you get a new email address, it doesn't bring your contacts or your history of emails with you. If you make a new twitter account, same thing. And of course, don't even think about trying to port, say, your facebook stuff into a youtube account. But if the fediverse can't, then it's a dealbreaker.
If you truly want to channel the limitless depths of human creativity, give a Comment Section Skeptic (TM) every fediverse feature they say they want. Then wait and watch as that creativity goes into action, as [insert new feature] is now the new dealbreaker. It is and always will be an endless game of whack a mole.