gila

For what it’s worth, Mozilla did release a Firefox nightly test build a couple of months ago which included a proof of concept vertical tabs feature: https://www.ghacks.net/2024/04/02/mozilla-released-a-firefox-nightly-test-build-with-vertical-tabs/

Still not clear whether they’re gonna implement it properly though

The resulting song would be useless to everyone, including you. In the hypothetical eventuality where what you’re asking for is implemented, only a tiny minority of the tabs you’ve collected will be of the slightest usefulness to you, ever. Fundamentally, why did you ever open a given tab in the first place? In the case where you ever need to recall it, it will be trivial to open it again in a fresh browser session. You acknowledge googling is easier than managing bookmarks in these volumes, and you’re right. That’s what you should do. Your current approach is simply hoarding.

I run it as a pwa using an extension. The only extensions I have running in the pwa container are ublock & sponsorblock. No custom user-agent or anything else. Never had an issue

I couldn’t find it in my comment history, but I saw a thread months ago where someone was lamenting migrating from reddit where they used to just google “episode ### discussion” for the show they’re watching and would find a corresponding reddit thread, but the same thing wasn’t working for them with Lemmy. Someone else pointed out that it might be because Google personalises some of the search results now, so I tried their example query and the top link was to the post I was commenting on. It had already indexed to the most relevant result about an hour after the original post

It’s seen as an investment, yes. Those are important factors for a currency, I agree.

Is there a part where you meant to connect these dots to substantiate the first statement about it being a problem that it’s seen as an investment?

Edit: I get it, you’re saying it’s a problem with the idea that Bitcoin should be used as a currency in everyday transactions. I don’t think that’s a popular use case for Bitcoin, though. I wouldn’t use “digital gold” for everyday transactions, similarly to how I wouldn’t use real gold. That’s not really a problem with Bitcoin though, more of a misunderstanding of it

It’s sad, but as a crypto user I’d be sketched out enough about using a centralised hot wallet app like Exodus in an official capacity, let alone entering my private key in something installed via a 3rd party app store. This probably happens on the Play Store a few times a week, and that’s on a bigger platform with a full security review process. It’s ultimately unavoidable.

Am noob on debian, it’s great. Watched some videos to help introduce me, and it seems like the onboarding experience since 12 is way better than previously.

It’s the website that’s shitty, not the installer. And you’re not stupid OP, the bootable live image installer should be the default download. Make sure you link directly to it in your post, if you do. I should be able to go to the Debian website, hit download and get the best option like I can on the Ubuntu site. I got the normal installer instead, but that was fine for me.

I wouldn’t necessarily say I’m representative of the average newbie, as I had brief forays with using Linux many years ago. But it’s been painless. It took like an hour to setup, try a couple of DE’s, add Flatpack sources and then I was away, back to being immersed in my apps.

Wayland by default, inclusion of nonfree firmware sources, GNOME 43 are highlights for me and reasons why it deserves some focus. New users are coming from Windows, not Fedora. I’ve tried GNOME 2, that was a problem for me as a windows user. GNOME 43 is not a problem for Windows users, it is literally much more performant and stable. To the point I just realised now that it’s an older version when you pointed that out. Could’ve fooled me.

The reason I tried Debian first is because I wanted a blank slate, especially coming from Win11. That’s what I got after minimal and easy configuration. I’m satisfied with it and don’t feel curious about trying other distros, at least not right now.

Yeah, just the company uses G Suite so I defaulted to the platform my boss was comfortable with. Comment not intended to promote Google products

I’ve been open minded to it but got my first impression of it in the wild recently when we had a meeting with an intl supplier that uses it, and have to agree it sucked. Aside from the organiser being late, everyone else was ready to start, but other parties on supplier end could not approve our entry because they didn’t set the meeting. Apparently we could work around it if we created Microsoft accounts.within 30 seconds I started an instant Google meet and sent them a pre-approved link to join, and upon joining the call they expressed surprise about how easy that was.

mkvtoolnix-gui

It was the wrong question and I just guided you on how it was wrong. For it to be the correct question you should have qualified what you meant by using that phrase. I’m sorry you didn’t understand that.

The post headline is “each Bitcoin transaction uses 4,200 gallons of water”. This generalisation is based on one Bitcoin mining operation which upon cursory inspection is actually a LNG electric company. I’m speculating but likely the reason they mine Bitcoin is to make it worth keeping the gas fire on during off-peak.

If you’re going to use a single operation to generalise about the whole network, why use this small weird outlier and not the bigger companies like Riot, Bitfarms, Genesis? I could turn around and say “each bitcoin transaction is fully renewable” based on the operations of any of those companies, and the claim would be even more substantiated than that headline is by that report. But it would still be wrong. Neither example is representative of the energy required by Bitcoin.

Now, I’m not coming to the party trying to push Bitcoin as a transactional currency, like you seemed to have a notion of it trying to compete as. I don’t think it’s much good for that. But I’m not about to go believing some made up shit about how a computer solving some cryptographic puzzles has a comparable environmental impact to filling an entire swimming pool. Gimme a break dude.

You’d need to qualify what you mean by ‘exchanging any value of money’. If it’s handing a note of currency to your friend, the energy cost of circulating the bill is associated. If you mean someone not in the same room, then you need to accept the associated caveats of running the traditional finance system e.g. ATM costs, financed emissions, and other essential components of the fractional reserve bank concept. Totally aside from the server requirements to physically run the network. Without all of those things, you can’t exchange any value of money.

Traditional finance almost certainly consumes as much water as Bitcoin on a per-capita basis, and on an absolute basis traditional finance uses way, way more. The difference is the global network of banking operations is opaque. For Greenidge Generation, their 2.5EH/s hashrate is a part of their product, advertising it is a sales tactic. Just makes it a bit less abstract to pick apart and then make broad generalisations about the sum hashrate of the network based on this LNG-powered site the report is based on. For what it’s worth, that’s not really a feasible way to mine Bitcoin. It suggests energy generation is their real product.

The real answer is a rhetorical question: what is the impetus for the traditional finance system to operate sustainably, either now or in future? Because for Bitcoin miners it’s clear. The monetary policy essentially dictates it over time. Reward yield decreases for the same amount of work. You don’t need to get into whether it’s environmentally sustainable, because it’s not economically sustainable unless you’re generating a fully renewable energy source.

To draw a comparison between bitcoin energy consumption and water use is plainly seeking to remove context from the conditional justification for Bitcoin’s energy use, which has nothing to do with water. It’s deliberately sensationalistic. Anything that consumes energy can be described as consuming or wasting an equivalent amount of water. As a statement on whether that consumption is justified, it’s meaningless.

Whether the energy consumption of an action is justified depends on the efficiency of the energy use, the practical aim of the action, whether it would replace any more or less efficient actions, and the energy source.

Simply stating it has no purpose and that the energy use of Bitcoin is somehow analogous to mass water wastage, does not seek to investigate whether Bitcoin’s energy use is justified. It’s disingenuous and reactionary.

That’s true, this was one thing that was slightly annoying when I made the move from brave to Firefox. But I mean, I wouldn’t really characterise this as a reliable security feature. If you don’t manually check your URL before hitting return anyway, you’re going to be less secure than without the feature

The California attorney general already said CCPA can’t be used to legally enforce DNT requests because it isn’t specific enough. So I’m guessing this is a more specific mechanism that can be included in regulations like CCPA and GDPR in future. People protected by them are already meant to be able to opt out