Wait a sec. Something which provides such an unambiguous quality of life upgrade by addressing one of the biggest health problems in the country, is only now available because of regulations?
Seems wild right? Would you believe that there’s a male contraceptive that’s been actively used in other countries successfully for over a decade, is easily and painlessly reversible, and non-hormonal?
It took the FDA four years to pull Thalidomide from the market. Hell, it was OTC in the early days and often prescribed for morning sickness.
They're more cautious now when it comes to pregnancy related drugs. As someone who was not born with flippers instead of hands, I'm pretty happy about that.
> It took the FDA four years to pull Thalidomide from the market.
BZZT! Wrong.
Thalidomide had _never_ been approved in the USA for the morning sickness, thanks to the FDA. The only pregnant people receiving it were getting experimental pre-approval samples (now illegal) and during the clinical trials. See, for example: https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/fda-did-not-appro...
You're correct, I was mistaken. Although my mistake may actually help to support my stance.
It was used, and marketed, for morning sickness primarily in other countries (Germany in particular). It's an important distinction, because the US FDA actually stopped it's approval in the US. It seems that "only" about 20,000 American study participants were given the drug at that time. So more than half of the dead/deformed babies came from Germany.
Had the German equivalent of the FDA prevented the drug from going to market many babies might not have been born with deformities.
There are VERY good reasons to be slow in approving drugs that might impact a fetus.
That assumes perfect accuracy. If a command is misheard then you probably need to correct whatever is now in the wrong state, and then definitely reissue the original command. If its text input then you have to do some select/correct dance. Both of these things take a lot of time.
I read the article. It frames "left-of-center" organizations as bad an inappropriate for a tech company. It criticizes Mozilla of supporting social justice causes. It questions why is Mozilla spending money on anything other than it's product.
Absolutely nothing about this reporting is unbiased. He even goes into race and looks into Action Research Collaborative about how the founder has "problems with white people".
Anyone reading this will clearly read the article as right-wing, and maybe even far right-wing biased.
Asking why a tech company whose only product of note is slowly dying, why they are spending money on unrelated advocacy, is entirely reasonable though?
All you have done is convict him conclusively of having an opinion while not liberal. Guilty as charged. I am unclear why that is such a problem.
Theres no such thing as unbiased, so lets set that impossible-to-meet standard aside.
Anytime Mozilla comes up here, the question comes up about supporting Firefox development without the pile of other stuff they do. There is no way to do so. Perhaps their lack of focus is a concern that crosses partisan lines, and ignoring those concerns simply because of tribalism is unwise?
The issue is that his bias creates bad reporting. There is always bias as you mentioned, but his is so bad that it clouds his judgement. There are many users who use Mozilla's products not because they are superior (though I think firefox is), but because they have a great mission. In fact, anyone supporting open source does it because of the mission, not the quality of the product. In most cases, proprietary products are better.
Mozilla is not just a tech company, and far right individuals like Lunduke can't understand that because their bias clouds their reasoning.
Lunduke's reasoning is so clouded, he is a climate denier. That enough should disqualify him as a serious person.
Okay, I read the article. He's a right-wing nutjob with a persecution fetish ranting about a few 5 and 6 figure expenses of a company that spends 9 figures on software deployment and has an axe to grind about the values of the organizations behind those expenses.
Wow the self-righteous literally-an-activist-group hippies of the browser world are self-righteous about other causes? How could we have ever predicted this.
Its strange to see so much moralizing in this thread about a device which only receives signals and can't harm another being unless maybe thrown hard enough.
Most speed limits are artificially low to the point where slavish adherence makes them the safety issue, rather than everyone else breaking the law.
For one, not throwing out their only differentiated advantage versus Chrome. For two, not taking the option that removes user control and customization whenever there is an option to do so. They could have been the privacy-focused browser, but it is still full of crap like this and various bits of undisclosed telemetry.
There would be value in being the only browser to actually stop when users tell them no. But they seem incapable of listening.
> They could have been the privacy-focused browser
I don't see how trying to find a privacy-preserving way of dealing with the ad conundrum makes them not a privacy-focused browser/company.
You'd need to otherwise cite something re: undisclosed telemetry, considering the project is open source... so I'm not sure how exactly it'd be undisclosed.
Moving ssh off of port 22 makes it a pain in the ass to work with. Ports are standardized for a reason.
Authentication attempts are a useful security signal; I don't want to filter them out. I want hosts running dictionary attacks to not be able to connect to my services in the first place. If you are running an SSH bot, then I don't want you on my website or anything else.
> Moving ssh off of port 22 makes it a pain in the ass to work with. Ports are standardized for a reason.
yes, they were standardized in the ol' good times :) If you have a limited amount of people/services connecting then it is manageable. But of course YMMV.
> Authentication attempts are a useful security signal; I don't want to filter them out. I want hosts running dictionary attacks to not be able to connect to my services in the first place. If you are running an SSH bot, then I don't want you on my website or anything else.
enumeration and brute force on SSH fail by design when using keys.
As for other services I do not see how this helps - you will block random IPs hoping that a vulnerable site is not taken over if they happen to get back. It is not common (at least in my monitoring of several honeypots in various locations) to have the same IP being particularly visible. Sure they are back sometimes but this is quite exceptional.
Anyway - it is not worth the hassle, better have proper hardening.
> yes, they were standardized in the ol' good times :) If you have a limited amount of people/services connecting then it is manageable. But of course YMMV.
Agreed. I've never found it difficult to manage this. I already tend to configure SSH hosts in my ~/.ssh/config file anyway so that I don't have to remember every IP and port combination for every host I have access to when I want to use SSH (or something that relies on the SSH protocol like rsync or scp).
That is not the correct label for this argument. The argument is that there are a limited amount of hours in the day and that there are different amounts of risk. The optimal amount of risk is probably not zero.
There is a very good argument to be made that training AI is fair use, as it is both transformative and does not compete with the original work. This has yet to be tested in court.
Surely it's not that simple.