LMFAO. Brave uses uBO's lists and filters, including trusted filters which have much more capabilities with much more risks to your sites' data and they allow that on all other lists too (even uBO only allows their own lists as trusted by default, other lists need to have permissions from users manually). That's how they can block youtube ads, and no they don't code their own filters for youtube ads either. And be assure that they can't check 100% all commits from uBO and other lists either.
If you want to play "no trust to a 3rd party dev", you should not use Brave's adblocker either. Or at least turn off all the lists inside it, and use your own lists. Your security risk is in those stock lists.
As an emulsifier, allowing the fats and the water to mix better. I _think_ it also might help to trap air bubbles. It helps you turn on the creaminess-knob
the YouTube app does the same. Infuriating. I don't have Chrome installed and it doesn't list the only third party browser I _do_ have installed: Orion
I recently helped a friend picking a new laptop. Just going through the options at the websites of manufacturers was a nightmare. Huge amount of choices, shitty filtering, separated into multiple product lines were I often enough had no idea what separated the lines from each other
15 years ago this comment would have been a troll.
Nowadays it’s solid advice. The current Mac line-up is a step ahead of the competition. App compatibility is hardly an issue anymore with the exception of some very niche software.
Cute, and while I will agree that Apple hardware is generally superior or at least an excellent value, and OS X is miles beyond Windows in usability, I can't in good conscience recommend a Mac on principle.
They impose obsessive control over their walled garden, constant pressure to use Apple ecosystem products, and they are staunchly opposed to interoperability regardless of it being an obviously anti-consumer tactical moat.
Buying a Mac in spite of such anti-consumer behavior reminds me of voting for a bad person because you like their policies.
but to make a binary for it? You do. Even if it's not-for-profit. Why do you think web interfaces are so popular for OSS, a lot easier for the code to be JIT'd and run in a browser than pay a $99 vig for something you did in 10 days to speed up a process for yourself etc.
I compile and run utilities on my Mac all the time, and I've never spent a penny on dev tools or unlocks.
Yes, there's a fee to get access to the App Store, but almost nobody on the Mac uses the App Store... the fee is mainly for putting stuff on iOS (and likely watchOS, tvOS).
The fee also gets you the absolute latest Xcode, but go back one version, and it's entirely free.
On Mac, you can install brew, and use it to install gcc, clang, qemu, whatever utilities you want.
You used to need the developer fee to put stuff on your iOS device at all, but these days you can put stuff on your personal devices without a fee, but the binary expires in a week... enough to learn and debug, but not ideal for a personal tool. That's about the only annoyance where the fee comes up... long term deployment to iOS.
> you can put stuff on your personal devices without a fee, but the binary expires in a week... enough to learn and debug, but not ideal for a personal tool
This sounds like dystopian cyberpunk written in the 80s
You're sort-of right, I think, because you do need an Apple account to sign in to the Mac App Store to get current Xcode in the first place - but the $99 is entirely optional!
For distributing your program without the fee, you'll probably moan about the hoops that people have to jump through to run your stuff: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/mac-help/mh40616/mac - and I can't say I love this myself, but people can run your stuff, and no fee necessary.
(I've got a couple of (somewhat niche) FOSS things for macOS, and I build the releases using GitHub Actions with whatever default stuff the thing uses, then make up DMGs that people can download from the GitHub releases page. I added a bit in the documentation about visiting the security dialog if you're blocked - and that seems to have been sufficient.)
As opposed to Microsoft, the good guys right now? I don’t see how incessant privacy violations, selling your data, and general shovelware behavior of Windows 11 is better. In many ways, it’s much worse in my view.
Linux isn't a real choice for 99.9% of the population. If you're advising someone else on buying a laptop in an authority sense, rather than a colleague sense... telling someone to buy a Linux laptop (or, buy a laptop and put Linux on it), is a recipe for being tech support for them forever.
What “walled garden” burdens a Mac user? And what interoperability are you looking for? There is nothing proprietary about Thunderbolt, USB C, Bluetooth etc
> voting for a bad person because you like their policies.
These days, you're lucky if you get to pick from "Bad", "Very Bad", and "Worst".
(BTW, does Mr. Bad look like he'll competently implement and honestly administer his policies? 'Cause without those, "good" policies ain't worth squat):
They did end up getting a Macbook. I wouldn't have suggested it, because I don't want to make people switch operating systems if they themselves don't want to. But they threw it into the mix, so I did include it in the list of suggestions
> The losses are concentrated in tropical moist broadleaf forests in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar, and parts of West Africa, driven by deforestation and forest degradation
If I read this correctly: No, forests are not suddenly emitting carbon. People are just felling enough trees and treating them badly enough, that their forests are now dying faster than they are regrowing
I’m not sure I understand why the headline is wrong.
Whatever the reason might be, the point is that African forests have gone from absorbing more carbon than they release, to releasing more carbon than they absorb.
IOW, they have become net emitters as opposed to net absorbers.
One could argue the forest itself hasn't started emitting carbon, its the loss of biomass due to clearing that has had a net reduction in total biomass.
While technically correct, I think your comment is disingenuous and distracts from the issue.
You're right that the forests themselves are not emitting carbon. However, human deforestation is causing the sequestered carbon in the trees to be removed from the forest and that is also reducing the forest's ability to absorb carbon.
TFA
> their forests are now dying faster than they are regrowing
> ...driven by deforestation and forest degradation.
Due largely to deforestation caused by humans.
A search for "logging in congos protected forest" will reveal numerous articles on this:
> Despite the ban on new industrial logging, the DRC has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world, losing 490,000 hectares (1.2m acres) of primary rainforest in 2020, according to Global Forest Watch.
There is a top level comment taking the article's wording as meaning the trees have evolved to emit carbon because of the confusing wording. I think it's a very helpful comment to clarify what the article is trying to say, not a distraction from it.
> Call me bad at parties, but a dedicated app for inviting people to the party is too much fanfare for my taste.
I agree. We threw a halloween party. We just discussed who we wanted to invite and threw everybody together in a whatsapp groupchat to announce the thing.
reply