It would seem that the end user has no idea what "cut" means. I never have to "go back to the original directory to delete the originals". That is what "cut" is for.
Besides, as other comments pointed out, one can make a multiple selection, and then, in conjunction with "cut", it will work exactly like the feature described at the end. 🤷♂️
Edit: I was searching for a "meta" community, since this is a post on Lemmy about current Lemmy limitations... But it turns out that this might very well be off topic. I apologise if it is the case... I would gladly take suggestions on what community would be best for this post, BTW.
Why? Well, it was Chrome. Yes, I know many of you spit at the very name. Get over it.
OK, boomer (yes, "surprise! surprise!", this harticle – for "hate driven article" – was written by a boomer, and one that writes for several online publications, too).
This article is not only a (staggering) failure from the aforementioned boomer to grasp what really is at play here, but it also shows a significant, shocking lack of quality assurance in the way "theregister" determines what gets published. This piece isn't an opinion as much as a flaming bag of shit, meant to stink everyone's shoes, and motivated only by the author's ineptitude-fuelled frustration in what seems a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Lemme first address my primary point, in relation to what I quoted at the top, I'll get to illustrating the various failures of the author after that.
No, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, we will not "get over it".
The first inaccuracy is in depicting Mozilla Firefox as "a browser". It isn't merely just another browser. Firefox is the last widespread multiplatform browser that isn't using the Blink engine (yes I know GNOME Web and Konqueror use WebKit, which is Blink's ancestor, BTW[^1] , but they are hardly widespread. And safari isn't multiplatform).
Why does that matter? Because the engine is essentially all that a browser is, once you strip away the cosmetics. So the actual contest here isn't between a dozen of browsers, but between two engines, and Firefox's (Gecko) is, indeed, in a dire position. But if we let it go further, it will, as Steven puts it, fall into irrelevance (the inaccuracy here is that the harticle depicts Firefox as already irrelevant).
And if we ever come to the point where only one engine prevails, where services necessary for administrations, citizenship, and life in general, can drop support for anything else than Blink, it is the end of the open web, and of open source web browsers in general[^2].
You will then have to input intimate personal information into a proprietary software, by law.
If you don't see this as a problem, you are part of the problem.
And this is why we can't "get over it".
The internet is much more than just the web. But 100% (rounded from 99.999+%) of users are unaware of that.
The web is much more than browsing. But 100% (rounded) of users are unaware of that.
Now, as to the other blunders I mentioned above, here are a bunch:
"Mozilla's revenue dropped from $527,585,000 to $510,389,000".
This is a 3% drop. Significant? Yes. But hardly a game ender.
"So, where is all that money coming from? Google".
I know it, you know it, we all have known that for a decade by now, and yes, it is a problem, yes, we need public FOSS funding, but that is neither news, nor relevant. Firefox, as the last major browser not directly controlled by Google, can find funding elsewhere. If I'm correct, and the stakes are so high, when Google pulls out, the public will step in (🤞), in the form of institutions, such as the EU.
"[...] she wants to draw attention to our increasingly malicious online world [...] I don't know what that has to do with the Mozilla Foundation".
That's on you, buddy. Understanding the matter at hand should be a prerequisite for publishing on theregister. But I digress. The maliciousness has a lot more to do with software than with users. And the root of said software aren't in "the algorithms", but really in actual, user facing software, that runs in our physical machines, where our microphones, cameras, GPS, and various other sensors are plugged...
"Somehow, all this will be meant to help Mozilla in "restoring public trust in institutions, governments, and the fabric of the internet." That sounds good, but what does that have to do with Firefox?".
Again, it's on you. Seriously, WTF. I get that you, the author, are American, and that decades of misinformation about "socialism", and "public ownership" will do that to a motherfucker, but Firefox does need funding aside from verdammt Google. You even highlighted that point yourself... How do you suppose they would get public funding if the government, or the public, doesn't trust Mozilla? Because replacing Google by another corporation only moves the problem, it hardly solves anything. While I'm at it, quick history lesson here: the "fabric of the internet" has been publicly funded. All of it. The internet was designed by DARPA funded researchers. Public money. Developed by universities. Public money. The web was invented at the CERN, by a researcher. Paid with public money. As a tech writer, how do you not know that?
[^1]: WebKit is only partially different from Blink, since Blink is a fork of WebKit. So, as far as "interoperability through competing implementations" goes, WebKit is of rather limited relevance, unfortunately.
[^2]: Only chromium and brave are available as open source software, chromium is maintained by Google as a courtesy, they can pull the plug any time, it will probably only affect their revenue positively. Brave is 3 times less popular than Firefox.
Also, lots of users aren't gonna want the main system memory on the CPU die. Aside from the fact that it creates a clear path for vendors to artificially inflate prices through pretended scarcity via product segmentation and bundles, it also prevents the end users from upgrading the machines.
I'm pretty sure this even goes against the stated goals of the EU in terms of reduction of e-waste.
I have no doubt that a handful of vendors cooperating could restrict their offer and force the hand of end users, but I don't think this would be here to stay. Unless it provides such a drastic performance boost (like 2x or more) that it could be enough of an incentive to convince the masses.
They simply tried to lower the tension. This type of humour is their watermark
Yeah, I agree with that assessment, but that tone is absolutely not okay in the current context.
If very dark humour is your "type of humour", it doesn't mean you can just go "business as usual" and make dark jokes around someone right after they lost a loved one, had a tragic accident, got SA'd, etc.
Linus tried to weasel out of the GN accusations by saying he "failed to read the room". That was because entertainment is about reading the room, while reviewing is about accuracy and objectivity. Then, he failed to recognize that (but GN was there to remind everyone, fortunately).
In this case, however, when going with their usual "entertainment" vibe, he should have "read the room". Which not only he failed miserably to do, but all of the LMG management (including the new "they're gonna solve all the problems" additions) too apparently.
This does not bode well for LMG. It is proof they are clueless, do not have the skills to fix their problems, and aren't to be expected to get any better. It's a shame, because it was good entertainment. At least for as long as I had Linus in my blind spot. Now, I can't unsee it, and I can absolutely imagine how much of a bully he is remembered being by people from his past (he mentioned that in passing here and there).
Oof, you wanna TL;DR half a week of "influencer" drama? I'll bite.
Yeah no they're not salvageable. Linus is a clown. My friends even told me, but I didn't see it. That's the consequence of growing up surrounded by toxicity: you think it's normal and don't see it.
expired
This is, quite frankly, atrocious.
Hello everyone,
I have discovered SimpleX Chat (nothing to do with XChat or HexChat, or the favorite letter of some dumb billionaire), and it appears being a legit good effort at providing good privacy while retaining "mainstream" usability.
And it has been audited (by one company so far, it seems).
The only concern I have is with regards to battery life (given that it has to maintain roughly as many open connections as you have contacts, AFAICT).
Has anyone here used it? Any opinion?
expired
I have two kids. I asked people to use signal to send and receive the photos. Asking people to follow your requirements only works for the direct immediate communication. The photos of my kids were sent by the recipients I sent them to (over signal) to other members of the family, over gmail (unencrypted), WhatsApp, Instagram, etc. I learned that years after.
This was in direct violation of my express requests. When I confronted them, they played dumb.
So, not to be a buzzkill here OP, but if you did this to get more people to use your messenger of choice, good job, it worked. If you did this so the pics of your kids stayed on safe apps, don't fool yourself. They didn't.