"bat" seemed interesting, until I remembered that I'd just do a "git diff" if I wanted to see a diff. The rest do not strike me as substantially better than what they're trying to replace. Enjoy them all as you will, but I would recommend refraining from describing them as "modern unix" in the presence of any old-timers.
Yeah I've been back there a few times to check, and the reddit I knew is most certainly dead. Its corpse will stumble around for a while animated by venture capital necromancy, but it's not really a threat any more and will stop moving soon enough. Youtube still has much enshittification to go before it gets to that point.
They may benefit from it, but it's pretty hard to believe that a bunch of sleazy "AI can do everything" snake oil salesmen, along with the politicians and lobbyists they've bought, got to be this influential and well-funded on their own. It's not as if their arguments are all that convincing on their merits.
If there's an official account for Firefox on mastodon or elsewhere on the fediverse it doesn't appear to be easy to find.
There is a @mozilla@mozilla.social, but despite having twenty thousand followers it appears to have been inactive since June and has only ever made 7 posts.
You have given lemmy very little to go on here, so pick whichever answer you prefer.
Hypothesis 1: The culture of which you are a part has established gender roles which lead to its women typically being more emotionally open and empathic than the menfolk.
Hypothesis 2: For similar cultural reasons, women around you tend to favour a communications style that happens to be more compatible with the one you have developed for yourself, leading to easier mutual understanding.
Hypothesis 3: You have some hang-ups of your own about sex which are making you more receptive to female company than male.
About 3,000 adolescents in Texas, ages 13 to 17, were questioned between 2015 and 2019. The researchers compared the results with responses from more than 32,000 teens in the broader United States.
To me this appears garbled in the usual science journalism way, although it doesn't change the overall gist of it which seems legit. They analyzed each population separately and found significant results in both populations. Reported vaping was associated with an additional chance of asthma of something approximately like 0.1% to 3% at the 95% confidence interval among US adolescents, the exact range depending on numbers not included in the excerpt provided on Science Direct.
Edit: I initially thought the 15-19 age range, being the only one I saw mentioned in the excerpt, was the one studied. That does not appear to be the case. That complicates things in a way that makes it unclear precisely where the bounds of that confidence interval are when described in a way that quantifies the overall public health risk. Read the full study if you need more precise information.
If they have a rare piece of music history they're probably also seeding many more popular things as well, which are eating up all available bandwidth which might not be much.
I'm not usually much of a conspiracy theorist, but damned if it doesn't look a little like what might happen if a powerful cabal of billionaires was making concerted efforts to use their political influence to lock down the remaining parts of the world where people have some degree of liberty in order to prepare for installing the authoritarian fascism they think will keep them safe in the coming apocalypse.
Don’t believe any graph whose y-axis starts at any value but 0 people.
This one is pretty bad but that is definitely not the right lesson to take from it. The one thing it does show us is that approximately 20k extra new users suddenly showed up compared to the trend, and that would be much more difficult to see if the relevant axis did start at zero. The bigger problem is that it shows too short a time span. It's not clear how unusual this event was, or if it happens every week.
The other weird thing is that bottom-right axis does start at zero for some reason. I'm guessing it might somehow be trying to indicate "toots" specifically made by those new users? But that's not how it's labelled and it seems unlikely they could have that data.
Having read that hit piece aimed at Ungoogled Chromium, I will continue to use it for the rare occasions when I need something other than Firefox. It makes a few good points that security-conscious users should be aware of (although which of them still apply at present is unknown to me) but it does not look anything like what I would expect from an unbiased and diligent reviewer.
Well, I did overlook jq in there. Not the first time I've forgotten that it exists.