bitofhope

Whether the terms are abusable by design or by accident doesn't really matter, you get is abuse either way.

How I wish we could have some nice things sometimes.

The update on their news post supports the "don’t sue us for sending the data you asked us to send" intention.

UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.

Whether or not to believe them is up to you.

Maybe. The latter part of the sentence matters, too

…you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Good luck getting a lawyer to give a definitive answer to what exactly counts as helping you do those things.

The whole sentence is a little ambiguous itself. Does the "as you indicate with your use of Firefox" refer to

• A) the whole sentence (i.e. "[You using Firefox indicates that] when you upload […] you hereby grant […] to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content.") or
• B) only to the last part of it (i.e. "When you upload […] you hereby grant […] to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content [in the ways that you] indicate with your use of Firefox.")

B seems fairly innocuous and the intended effect is probably "if you send data to a website using our browser, don't sue us for sending the data you asked us to send". The mere act of uploading or inputting information through Firefox does not — in my (technical, not legal) expert opinion — indicate that Mozilla could help me navigate, experience, or interact with online content by MITMing the uploaded or input data.

A is a lot scarier, since the interpretation of what it means to "help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content" does not depend on how you use Firefox. Anything that Mozilla can successfully argue to help you do those things is fair game, whether you ask for it or not, which seems a lot more abusable.

Opera Mini was (is?) an embedded/mobile browser for Symbian dumbphones and other similar devices that passed all traffic through a proxy to handle rendering on server side and reduce processing effort on the (typically slow and limited) mobile devices. This could be construed as helping the user navigate, experience, and interact with online content, so there is precedent of a browser MITMing its users' data for arguably helpful purposes.

I would never accept hijacking my web upload and input data for training an LLM or whatever mass data harvesting fad du jour happens to be in fashion at a given time and I do not consider it helpful for any purpose for a web browser to do such things. Alas, the 800-pound gorilla might have some expensive reality-bending lawyers on its side.

I thought about the "anthro pic" too, but it feels like a low hanging fruit since the etymological relation of anthropic and anthropomorphic (from ancient Greek ἄνθρωπος) is so obvious.

Last time I wore a suit I kept track of the way everyone around looked at me and five of them looked hatefully. The first one was reading Lenin and nodding approvingly. The second one was trying to covertly plant a comically oversized microphone with Russian markings and a hammer and sickle on it. The third one was handing out militant union agitprop and advocating for a good work strike among transit workers. The fourth one was wearing a Zhōngshān suit (which is technically also a type of suit, so that was quite hypocritical of him) and proudly proclaiming to be Maoist Third Worldist. The fifth one I made up just to feel a little more persecuted so you can imagine the proof of their radical socialism by yourself.

Aww thanks, kind of you to say that.

I paid for the whole motherboard, I'm using the whole motherboard thank you very much. ASCII was good enough for the Bible, so it's good enough for me. God included character number 7 for a reason, even if that reason was for me to hear obnoxious buzzing from my audiophile grade piezo beeper.

My favorite bit:

When software that came pre-installed with the base OS reaches end-of-life (EOL) and no longer receives security fixes, Pacman can’t help

What base OS? The base metapackage that pulls in a small core of system software packages that are then treated and updated like any other package? What the hell is an EOL? You mean the thing that happens to non-rolling release distros such as Not Fucking Arch?

When GNU Scrotum 5.x series becomes unsupported after release 5.56, people running Arch Linux will be happy to know they already have gnu-scrotum-7.62.69-rc1 installed from their repositories. It's the people on LTS Enterprise distros who have to start whining at their maintainers to backport a major version of GNU Scrotum released since the Obama administration.

Humans have bouba intelligence, computers have kiki intelligence. This is makes so much more sense than considering how a chatbot actually works.

Ah, I recalled it having recovered quite a bit some years ago, but apparently that was temporary and due to a weather event. Even so, the direly depleted form of Ozone layer present in the Antarctic is still better than anything Mars could support.

Not that solar UV is going to be your biggest problem when the atmosphere is so thin you might as well try to breathe in a vacuum and >90% of the little that is there is CO~2~. If you can figure out how to breathe, you can probably come up with sunblock, too.

They're really fond of copypasta:

The issue with Arch isn't the installation, but rather system maintenance. Users are expected to handle system upgrades, manage the underlying software stack, configure MAC (Mandatory Access Control), write profiles for it, set up kernel module blacklists, and more. Failing to do this results in a less secure operating system.
The Arch installation process does not automatically set up security features, and tools like Pacman lack the comprehensive system maintenance capabilities found in package managers like DNF or APT, which means you'll still need to intervene manually. Updates go beyond just stability and package version upgrades. When software that came pre-installed with the base OS reaches end-of-life (EOL) and no longer receives security fixes, Pacman can't help—you'll need to intervene manually. In contrast, DNF and APT can automatically update or replace underlying software components as needed. For example, DNF in Fedora handles transitions like moving from PulseAudio to PipeWire, which can enhance security and usability. In contrast, pacman requires users to manually implement such changes. This means you need to stay updated with the latest software developments and adjust your system as needed.

Can you blame someone for hoping that maybe Musk might plan to yeet himself to Mars. I'd be in favor, though I'd settle for cheaper ways to achieve similar results.