Look, I'm not attacking them over this, as you rightly said, it has plenty of other drawbacks and concerns, I'm just emphasising that Google do have a large degree of influence over them. For instance, Chromium is dropping manifest v2 support, so Brave pretty much has to do the same. They've said that, as Chromium has a switch to keep it enabled until June (iirc) they've enabled that, but after Chromium drops manifest v2 the most they can do is try to support a subset of it as best they can. The Brave devs may not want to drop support, but Google have decreed it will be dropped, so they end up dropping it and having to put in extra work to keep even a subset working for some period of time.
If Brave gets even a moderate market share, Google will continue to mess them around like this as they really don't like people not seeing their adverts.
Ultimately it's software, so the Brave devs can do pretty much whatever they want, limited by the available time and money. Google's influence extends to making that either easier or harder, it much the same way as they influence the Android ecosystem.
They seem to have two levels of furniture; the flimsy, mostly made of particle board/cardboard and hope stuff, and the solid wood stuff. The latter is as robust any anything you'll get elsewhere, even assembled, just easier to get home and takes some assembly. I suspect it's mostly that that lasts, although even the lightweight stuff holds up well if you're carefully with it.
Yes there are plenty of changes, but it's built on it, and shaped by it, and Chromium is heavily influenced by Google. If chromium doesn't support v2 manifests it is unlikely that Brave will. In this particular case it may be that Brave's ad blocking and privacy features are equivalent to uBO, but it's still underpinned by an engine that Google has strong influence over, so it can't completely shake their influence.
The issue with that is a criminal can commit a crime, then have an accomplice commit a crime against them. Now when the police investigate the latter and find out about the former they can't use the evidence, so convicting the criminal of the, presumably, more serious crime becomes impossible. Create a 'crime loop' and no one can be convicted.
Hunting for bugs as in entomology, or hunting for bugs as in testing software? I'm down for either, I just need to know whether I need a magnifying glass or a console and vim.
It's a non-starter for me because I sync my notes, and sometimes a subset of my notes, to multiple devices and multiple programs. For instance, I might use Obsidian, Vim and tasks.md to access the same repository, with all the documents synced between my desktop and server, and a subset synced to my phone. I also have various scripts to capture data from other sources and write it out as markdown files. Trying to sync all of this to a database that is then further synced around seems overly complicated to say the least, and would basically just be using Trillium as a file store, which I've already got.
I've also be burnt by various export/import systems either losing information or storing it in a incompatible way.
I'm really not sure there are any shortcuts here, he is such a uniquely awful human being that any comparison will fall short. He's not the most evil person in the world, he's not the most racist, or the most homophobic, he isn't the thinnest skinned and he's not the most selfish or vindictive or vain, but he only loses out in any category by the smallest of margins. I fear that trying to find a yardstick to measure him by that encompasses all of the negatives is a vain errand, and in future he will be the yardstick we measure others of such a veanal and contemptible nature.
You are being deeply and unreasonably unfair to five-year-olds. The ones I've met tend to be curious, happy, utterly inclusive and considerably more coherent than the orange one.
So, you're repeatedly performing the same task at the command of a computer. Are you certain you are a cephalopod, airborne or otherwise, and not, in fact, a robot? ;)
NATO's having a presence in a member state is protection. It reduces the chance of opportunists like Putin invading.
Putin tried to call NATO's bluff, using Ukraine as a bargaining chip. NATO didn't blink, and so he started a war. He doesn't get to do the abuser thing of saying "see what you made me do". This is on him, and him alone.
He can demand that NATO withdraw all he likes, and I'd have some sympathy for that if it didn't involve invading another country as leverage. Note, I say some sympathy, not that NATO should actually do it, especially as Putin's regieme has threatened other countries already.
So, you're saying that Putin sent demands to NATO, saying they either bend to his will by removing their protection from a large portion of their member states or he'd start a war, and by not signing it NATO are responsible for starting the war? I just want to fully understand your position on this.
How's he doing? Well, he's been up and down.