>"CEO Hakan Samuelsson said that while the strategies meant Volvo might lose some customers keen on high speeds,"
And lose customers who value freedom, value privacy, value control, value repairability, value not being harassed or labeled, value glitches not causing new safety and convenience issues, and value their wallets.
>"Please provide a credible citation which shows that roundup is not carcinogenic."
Besides being difficult to prove a negative, I would ask "under what conditions and circumstances?" Using Roundup on weeds in a yard several times a year, properly, is almost certainly safe. I admit I don't know the details of the case but the links and stories have no useful information on things like:
Was this guy following ALL the instructions on the label? Was he mixing the correct dilution? How often was he using it? Was he breathing it because of improper equipment? Was he getting it on his skin regularly (see warning label)?
Lots of useful and generally safe chemicals are dangerous when misused. California seems to think that just about everything made is carcinogenic, for example. I just went and downloaded the label and there are warnings about using it, washing after using it, avoiding wind, getting it in eyes or on on clothing, correct dilution, etc.
I would hate to see the manufacturer penalized, open the door for frivolous lawsuits, hugely increased prices, and even possibly damage availability due to unusual edge cases which might also involve product misuse.
>"This means autoplaying video in floating ads will continue to drain your computer's battery and your monthly Internet cap."
You can change the settings to block ALL autoplaying media that can be blocked- muted or not (which is NOT the new default). The settings are in about:config. This means animated PNG, GIF, WEBP, and HTML5 video will not autoplay. There are some things that can not be blocked by any browser (yet, or perhaps ever) because they are based on crude javascript "flip" animations. Sites using such crap are really, really badly designed and very hostile.
That last one will stop all animated GIF/PNG/WEBP from ever playing- there is no option to allow it to play selectively. You can change it to "once" if you want it to play once and not loop.
>"That their own taxes pay for these things, and don't consider them "free"."
The people most using such government programs are not the ones paying for them, or they are paying for a small fraction of a percent over their whole life. When one gets something you one doesn't pay for, it is free to them; a "gift" forced from others or from our children and our children's children in the form of trillions of dollars of unpaid, increasingly unservicable debt.
That is not to say I am against all government programs or aid, but certainly not to the extent we have now, nor at a Federal level, nor the way they have been implemented. I much prefer things like "teach a man to fish" and "the rising tide raises all boats" than to handouts with token strings.
I believe the Fed is entirely too huge, too expensive, too wasteful, and far too removed from from localities to be effective in those things not clearly assigned to it by the Constitution. We have raised multiple generations of people now partially or even totally dependent on the government for "aid", jobs, kickbacks, and services which has created an ever-growing "beast" which continues to be become less responsive and more corrupt and self-serving. More and more, citizens are now "victims" who are owed something from everyone else, raised without any work ethics, solid values, responsibilities, or any understanding of the dwindling away of their freedom. It is scary and can't end well.
>"It is a straw man to say those who want government programs want "free" things."
>"Mark Davis just explained Republicanism, not what "most Americans" actually want - the only thing he understands is greed and how to apologize for it."
Um, no, what I explained was the difference between conservative and non-conservative. Its not about greed, but explaining that to you would be a waste of time....
>"Fuck you bitch liar. FUCK YOU and your dishonest tapdance faggot shit. You and Kendall should burn in hell for all eternity."
Wow, really intelligent conversation and thought process. I am sure you sway lots of people with such foul commentary.
>"I can't blame someone who thinks other issues are more important. But we shouldn't have to make that choice in the first place."
Yet we always do, because we don't have much choice [in the USA]. There are actually only two parties (because of our horrible voting system). So the two take set stances on a whole sets of things, many of which most don't necessarily agree, so most voters are just SOL. We are forced to pick which issues are the most important- sometimes it might be only ONE issue, and all the other stuff we might not like comes along with the vote.
Currently, the only other option is voting "3rd party." And that almost always ensures you are not only "throwing away" your vote, but also ensures the party you LEAST agree with will benefit from that vote due to the very real spoiler effect.
The only solution is to have more parties so additional ones can form that more closely represent various positions and also help force the large/established parties to change and become more responsive. And that can only happen with some form of ranked voting system in the primaries and elections (like Instant Runoff Voting).
>"Most Americans support a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All,[...], tuition free college and even a federal jobs program of one kind or another."
âoeWhen the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.â
Most Americans will vote for anything that takes money from others (even future generations) to give it to themselves, regardless of the consequences to the economy or their freedom. Most Americans will also vote based on identity and feelings instead of facts and analysis. That is why the USA was set up as a Republic and with [what was supposed to be] some majorly constraining rules in the Constitution about what the Fed is allowed (very little) and not allowed (a lot) to do.
>"How many of those that "supports" net neutrality will care one whit about that issue when it comes time to vote. Maybe 0.001% of the populace would even think about it."
And how many of the populous actually even understand Net Neutrality? I see wildly varying definitions from group after group. It is not a simple nor single concept, and it involves lots of creeping tendrils, such that what might be great in some ways are not great in others.
Like with many things, it is hard to support a generic concept without heavy analysis of specific legislation being proposed.
>"Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported"
Then encourage people to report it more. That doesn't require scanning people's phones. Observed behavior is far more meaningful than trying to uncover every possibly way something bad could happen.
>"and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones."
Then make the punishments more severe. Again, that has nothing to do with scanning people's phones.
>"Adding to the problem, they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes, unlike drunken driving."
Does it matter the CAUSE of the "traffic crash" that much? Or does it matter more that it happened? Hold people accountable for the observed bad behavior (drifting lanes, failure to signal properly, "sleeping" through lights, running lights) and bad outcomes (like a crash, or forcing another vehicle to crash), not for pre-crime or backwards time analysis.
The level of dysfunction can't be measured by something so simple (like a phone scan or breath test, etc). You could be impaired by any number of drugs- legal or illicit. You might have fallen asleep because you worked late. You might have been distracted by your child. You might have been eating something while trying to drive. You might have drifted lanes while trying to change the radio, or get something from the glove box, or grabbing a brush from a purse in the other seat, or wearing flip-flops and having one wedge under the accelerator, or day-dreaming, or trying to read the paper, or putting on makeup, or spilling an unsecured hot coffee in your lap. Any of those things are bad driving behaviors, all avoidable, all potentially just as bad as messing with a phone while driving.
And mine to you, also. Fortunately my condition is not debilitating as it seems for some people. Like you, I try to know my limits and stay under them and just manage the best I can.
I do, too. Although doctors can't even decide if calling it CFS or FMS is more appropriate, since I have symptoms of both. The only thing tangible that shows on any test is severe deep sleep fragmentation (with no known cause). And it is very frustrating to be in intermittent pain and tired/exhausted for decades with almost no treatment that helps much. I think many of the doctors and researchers involved are just as frustrated as the sufferers. I pretty much gave up trying to find a solution many years ago.
>"First, the Elastic Clause, then the General Welfare clause, then the matter of guarantees to the state of their government, then the various Amendments."
If one misreads the intent of the clause, yes. Otherwise, the "Elastic Clause" gives the Fed the power to make laws which the Constitution allows, and [supposedly] nothing more.
"General Welfare"- same thing, a generic clause that just gives the power of the Fed to make laws. Not WHICH laws, which are [supposedly] constrained by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The only thing in your list [I believe] that is valid is the "various Amendments".... since those ARE part of the Constitution, those powers are granted. For example, setting the voting age.
The most contentious and abused part of the Constitution I see, that goes contrary to the 10th Amendment, is the "Interstate Commerce" in article one.
This just continues to illustrate everything that is wrong with the Fed. Take money from the citizens of the States, then waste it, then send part of it back to the States, with lots of strings and regulations attached, and without any concern for the actual needs of each State. Meanwhile, making the Fed larger and larger, and governance further and further away from the constituents. It breeds inefficiency, waste, corruption, and centralization of power while lowering innovation, freedom, and accountability.
This model, like the majority of all Federal actions for quite a while now, is unconstitutional- it is not the way the United States was designed nor meant to operate. All it takes is reading bill Bill of Rights of the Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
"It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people"
>"Her DNA test showed that actually she was correct in believing she had"
Sorry, but her DNA test showed that she had less than the average amount of Native American blood than the average several-generational white American has.
>"Me: Keep searching for a phone that skips the whole selfie shit, lets me hold it without inadvertent function and fits in my fucking pocket."
Exactly. How exactly do you hold and use a "full screen" display with touchscreen everywhere? And, I guess we are "strange" because, like you, I don't want a huge phone. I don't want it to be razor thin either (making it fragile and EVEN MORE difficult to hold). I would much rather have a thicker phone with better battery life, easy to hold, and a smaller (~5") phone that is easy to carry and store.
Using a Moto G5+ right now and it seems to fit the bill pretty well. A tad bit larger than necessary, but at least reasonable. Plus it was unlocked, fast, reasonably "stock", SD card, real headset jack, and $190 new.
>"biometrics can't be changed, and they are for the most part trivial to obtain."
Yes and no. It depends on the biometric. Palm deep vein scan is not trivial to obtain clandestinely; you don't leave it anywhere, it is not visible to the eye or regular cameras, it is live-sensing, and palms are rarely faced in a visible way.
>"For example you leave your fingerprints on everything you touch."
And you also leave your face image on all kinds of cameras and photos all over. And your voice on all kinds of devices that record. And your DNA is left absolutely everywhere. Yet, you leave your deep vein scan... nowhere. Plus scanning it is easy, cheap, accurate, and fast (unlike retinal scans which are difficult, expensive, and slow).
>"These very things make them good for identification and absolutely awful for authentication. Authentication should always be something in your head (password)"
And yet, I still agree with you. What biometrics do NOT prove is *intent*. When you give a password, you are expressing clear, conscious intent/approval/consent to do something. It can't be accidental or casual. This is not necessarily true with any biometric. If you have to use biometrics, it should be deep vein scan. But if it is anything important, it should be combined with something you "know" (like a password/pin).
1) Do nothing and continue this insane time changing twice a year that the vast majority of people dislike or even hate. 2) Stay on standard time year-round. 3) And the BEST choice of all- stay on summer time (daylight saving time) year-round.
But somehow even this will be made partisan, like everything else now, and then go nowhere. So we will be stuck with the worst choice (#1). Count on it.
>"Oliver described the scourge of robocalls and blamed Pai for not doing more to stop them."
Sorry, Oliver. Nothing of value was done under the previous FCC director, nor the one before, or before, or before. Stop making it sound like something should be different now.
Otherwise....
Yes, it is a serious problem. Yes, we need some serious action taken. No, just making it "illegal" or a "civil thing" isn't going to help.
We need better/accurate caller ID. We need to make phone carriers responsible for allowing spam. We need to have criminal penalties for abuse. We need actual enforcement.
Sorry, no more time to post, I have to go manually sort through a dozen more spam call voicemails today, mostly robocalls, on my answering machine now, so I can see if my vet left a message with important lab results.
Mozilla has been waiting for the correct 1.1 standards before fixing/coding something to something that was already dead and not working well. Besides, this is not the reason for the vast majority of "Chrome Only" sites starting to appear.
>"Apparently it doesn't support other browsers because it needs a plug-in that uses the Chrome/Edge architecture. They didn't make one for Firefox."
Yeesh, that is just as bad or worse. So now it not only doesn't use available web technologies and is not browser independent, it also bloats the browser, contaminates it with unknown "stuff", creates more possible security issues, and certainly will not support "alternative" operating systems like Linux.
Yeah, it is like IE-only days in more than one way.
I have been consistently angered by the way recycling symbols on products are presented:
1) Not present at all sometimes, on things clearly single-material 2) No contrast so they are hard to locate or see 3) So small as to be unreadable as to what number they are 4) So poorly formed, the number could be a 2 or a 7 or whatnot.
Slashdot Mirror
>"CEO Hakan Samuelsson said that while the strategies meant Volvo might lose some customers keen on high speeds,"
And lose customers who value freedom, value privacy, value control, value repairability, value not being harassed or labeled, value glitches not causing new safety and convenience issues, and value their wallets.
>"Please provide a credible citation which shows that roundup is not carcinogenic."
Besides being difficult to prove a negative, I would ask "under what conditions and circumstances?" Using Roundup on weeds in a yard several times a year, properly, is almost certainly safe. I admit I don't know the details of the case but the links and stories have no useful information on things like:
Was this guy following ALL the instructions on the label?
Was he mixing the correct dilution?
How often was he using it?
Was he breathing it because of improper equipment?
Was he getting it on his skin regularly (see warning label)?
Lots of useful and generally safe chemicals are dangerous when misused. California seems to think that just about everything made is carcinogenic, for example. I just went and downloaded the label and there are warnings about using it, washing after using it, avoiding wind, getting it in eyes or on on clothing, correct dilution, etc.
I would hate to see the manufacturer penalized, open the door for frivolous lawsuits, hugely increased prices, and even possibly damage availability due to unusual edge cases which might also involve product misuse.
>"Do these settings also prevent CSS-animated JPEG and PNG filmstrips from playing?"
Unfortunately, no. Which is why in the post I said:
"There are some things that can not be blocked by any browser (yet, or perhaps ever) because they are based on crude javascript "flip" animations"
>"This means autoplaying video in floating ads will continue to drain your computer's battery and your monthly Internet cap."
You can change the settings to block ALL autoplaying media that can be blocked- muted or not (which is NOT the new default). The settings are in about:config. This means animated PNG, GIF, WEBP, and HTML5 video will not autoplay. There are some things that can not be blocked by any browser (yet, or perhaps ever) because they are based on crude javascript "flip" animations. Sites using such crap are really, really badly designed and very hostile.
Anyway, try:
media.autoplay.default;1
media.autoplay.allow-muted;false
image.animation_mode;never
That last one will stop all animated GIF/PNG/WEBP from ever playing- there is no option to allow it to play selectively. You can change it to "once" if you want it to play once and not loop.
>"That their own taxes pay for these things, and don't consider them "free"."
The people most using such government programs are not the ones paying for them, or they are paying for a small fraction of a percent over their whole life. When one gets something you one doesn't pay for, it is free to them; a "gift" forced from others or from our children and our children's children in the form of trillions of dollars of unpaid, increasingly unservicable debt.
That is not to say I am against all government programs or aid, but certainly not to the extent we have now, nor at a Federal level, nor the way they have been implemented. I much prefer things like "teach a man to fish" and "the rising tide raises all boats" than to handouts with token strings.
I believe the Fed is entirely too huge, too expensive, too wasteful, and far too removed from from localities to be effective in those things not clearly assigned to it by the Constitution. We have raised multiple generations of people now partially or even totally dependent on the government for "aid", jobs, kickbacks, and services which has created an ever-growing "beast" which continues to be become less responsive and more corrupt and self-serving. More and more, citizens are now "victims" who are owed something from everyone else, raised without any work ethics, solid values, responsibilities, or any understanding of the dwindling away of their freedom. It is scary and can't end well.
>"It is a straw man to say those who want government programs want "free" things."
Perhaps. But it tends to be the reality I see.
>"Mark Davis just explained Republicanism, not what "most Americans" actually want - the only thing he understands is greed and how to apologize for it."
Um, no, what I explained was the difference between conservative and non-conservative. Its not about greed, but explaining that to you would be a waste of time....
>"Fuck you bitch liar. FUCK YOU and your dishonest tapdance faggot shit. You and Kendall should burn in hell for all eternity."
Wow, really intelligent conversation and thought process. I am sure you sway lots of people with such foul commentary.
>"Why don't you say what YOU would like to see in such legislation, hmm? I don't think you've given us a single point or idea on those merits yet."
That wasn't the objective of the message. And I have no ulterior motives.
>"I can't blame someone who thinks other issues are more important. But we shouldn't have to make that choice in the first place."
Yet we always do, because we don't have much choice [in the USA]. There are actually only two parties (because of our horrible voting system). So the two take set stances on a whole sets of things, many of which most don't necessarily agree, so most voters are just SOL. We are forced to pick which issues are the most important- sometimes it might be only ONE issue, and all the other stuff we might not like comes along with the vote.
Currently, the only other option is voting "3rd party." And that almost always ensures you are not only "throwing away" your vote, but also ensures the party you LEAST agree with will benefit from that vote due to the very real spoiler effect.
The only solution is to have more parties so additional ones can form that more closely represent various positions and also help force the large/established parties to change and become more responsive. And that can only happen with some form of ranked voting system in the primaries and elections (like Instant Runoff Voting).
http://fairvote.org/
>"The only real fix is some sort of instant runoff voting system"
+1000
https://fairvote.org/
>"Most Americans support a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All,[...], tuition free college and even a federal jobs program of one kind or another."
âoeWhen the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.â
Most Americans will vote for anything that takes money from others (even future generations) to give it to themselves, regardless of the consequences to the economy or their freedom. Most Americans will also vote based on identity and feelings instead of facts and analysis. That is why the USA was set up as a Republic and with [what was supposed to be] some majorly constraining rules in the Constitution about what the Fed is allowed (very little) and not allowed (a lot) to do.
>"How many of those that "supports" net neutrality will care one whit about that issue when it comes time to vote. Maybe 0.001% of the populace would even think about it."
And how many of the populous actually even understand Net Neutrality? I see wildly varying definitions from group after group. It is not a simple nor single concept, and it involves lots of creeping tendrils, such that what might be great in some ways are not great in others.
Like with many things, it is hard to support a generic concept without heavy analysis of specific legislation being proposed.
>"Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported"
Then encourage people to report it more. That doesn't require scanning people's phones. Observed behavior is far more meaningful than trying to uncover every possibly way something bad could happen.
>"and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones."
Then make the punishments more severe. Again, that has nothing to do with scanning people's phones.
>"Adding to the problem, they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes, unlike drunken driving."
Does it matter the CAUSE of the "traffic crash" that much? Or does it matter more that it happened? Hold people accountable for the observed bad behavior (drifting lanes, failure to signal properly, "sleeping" through lights, running lights) and bad outcomes (like a crash, or forcing another vehicle to crash), not for pre-crime or backwards time analysis.
The level of dysfunction can't be measured by something so simple (like a phone scan or breath test, etc). You could be impaired by any number of drugs- legal or illicit. You might have fallen asleep because you worked late. You might have been distracted by your child. You might have been eating something while trying to drive. You might have drifted lanes while trying to change the radio, or get something from the glove box, or grabbing a brush from a purse in the other seat, or wearing flip-flops and having one wedge under the accelerator, or day-dreaming, or trying to read the paper, or putting on makeup, or spilling an unsecured hot coffee in your lap. Any of those things are bad driving behaviors, all avoidable, all potentially just as bad as messing with a phone while driving.
And mine to you, also. Fortunately my condition is not debilitating as it seems for some people. Like you, I try to know my limits and stay under them and just manage the best I can.
>"I actually have this condition"
I do, too. Although doctors can't even decide if calling it CFS or FMS is more appropriate, since I have symptoms of both. The only thing tangible that shows on any test is severe deep sleep fragmentation (with no known cause). And it is very frustrating to be in intermittent pain and tired/exhausted for decades with almost no treatment that helps much. I think many of the doctors and researchers involved are just as frustrated as the sufferers. I pretty much gave up trying to find a solution many years ago.
>"First, the Elastic Clause, then the General Welfare clause, then the matter of guarantees to the state of their government, then the various Amendments."
If one misreads the intent of the clause, yes. Otherwise, the "Elastic Clause" gives the Fed the power to make laws which the Constitution allows, and [supposedly] nothing more.
"General Welfare"- same thing, a generic clause that just gives the power of the Fed to make laws. Not WHICH laws, which are [supposedly] constrained by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The only thing in your list [I believe] that is valid is the "various Amendments".... since those ARE part of the Constitution, those powers are granted. For example, setting the voting age.
The most contentious and abused part of the Constitution I see, that goes contrary to the 10th Amendment, is the "Interstate Commerce" in article one.
This just continues to illustrate everything that is wrong with the Fed. Take money from the citizens of the States, then waste it, then send part of it back to the States, with lots of strings and regulations attached, and without any concern for the actual needs of each State. Meanwhile, making the Fed larger and larger, and governance further and further away from the constituents. It breeds inefficiency, waste, corruption, and centralization of power while lowering innovation, freedom, and accountability.
This model, like the majority of all Federal actions for quite a while now, is unconstitutional- it is not the way the United States was designed nor meant to operate. All it takes is reading bill Bill of Rights of the Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
"It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Her DNA test showed that actually she was correct in believing she had"
Sorry, but her DNA test showed that she had less than the average amount of Native American blood than the average several-generational white American has.
I am so tired of identity politics.
>"The phone just ignores a band of touch input where the bezel used to be."
Does that work well or cause occasions of false positives and false negatives?
>"Me: Keep searching for a phone that skips the whole selfie shit, lets me hold it without inadvertent function and fits in my fucking pocket."
Exactly. How exactly do you hold and use a "full screen" display with touchscreen everywhere? And, I guess we are "strange" because, like you, I don't want a huge phone. I don't want it to be razor thin either (making it fragile and EVEN MORE difficult to hold). I would much rather have a thicker phone with better battery life, easy to hold, and a smaller (~5") phone that is easy to carry and store.
Using a Moto G5+ right now and it seems to fit the bill pretty well. A tad bit larger than necessary, but at least reasonable. Plus it was unlocked, fast, reasonably "stock", SD card, real headset jack, and $190 new.
>"biometrics can't be changed, and they are for the most part trivial to obtain."
Yes and no. It depends on the biometric. Palm deep vein scan is not trivial to obtain clandestinely; you don't leave it anywhere, it is not visible to the eye or regular cameras, it is live-sensing, and palms are rarely faced in a visible way.
>"For example you leave your fingerprints on everything you touch."
And you also leave your face image on all kinds of cameras and photos all over. And your voice on all kinds of devices that record. And your DNA is left absolutely everywhere. Yet, you leave your deep vein scan... nowhere. Plus scanning it is easy, cheap, accurate, and fast (unlike retinal scans which are difficult, expensive, and slow).
>"These very things make them good for identification and absolutely awful for authentication. Authentication should always be something in your head (password)"
And yet, I still agree with you. What biometrics do NOT prove is *intent*. When you give a password, you are expressing clear, conscious intent/approval/consent to do something. It can't be accidental or casual. This is not necessarily true with any biometric. If you have to use biometrics, it should be deep vein scan. But if it is anything important, it should be combined with something you "know" (like a password/pin).
>"it's a simple binary choice."
Not really. It is a simple trinary choice-
1) Do nothing and continue this insane time changing twice a year that the vast majority of people dislike or even hate.
2) Stay on standard time year-round.
3) And the BEST choice of all- stay on summer time (daylight saving time) year-round.
But somehow even this will be made partisan, like everything else now, and then go nowhere. So we will be stuck with the worst choice (#1). Count on it.
>"Oliver described the scourge of robocalls and blamed Pai for not doing more to stop them."
Sorry, Oliver. Nothing of value was done under the previous FCC director, nor the one before, or before, or before. Stop making it sound like something should be different now.
Otherwise....
Yes, it is a serious problem.
Yes, we need some serious action taken.
No, just making it "illegal" or a "civil thing" isn't going to help.
We need better/accurate caller ID.
We need to make phone carriers responsible for allowing spam.
We need to have criminal penalties for abuse.
We need actual enforcement.
Sorry, no more time to post, I have to go manually sort through a dozen more spam call voicemails today, mostly robocalls, on my answering machine now, so I can see if my vet left a message with important lab results.
>"In WebRTC case, it is Firefox that is broken: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s..."
Mozilla has been waiting for the correct 1.1 standards before fixing/coding something to something that was already dead and not working well. Besides, this is not the reason for the vast majority of "Chrome Only" sites starting to appear.
>"Apparently it doesn't support other browsers because it needs a plug-in that uses the Chrome/Edge architecture. They didn't make one for Firefox."
Yeesh, that is just as bad or worse. So now it not only doesn't use available web technologies and is not browser independent, it also bloats the browser, contaminates it with unknown "stuff", creates more possible security issues, and certainly will not support "alternative" operating systems like Linux.
Yeah, it is like IE-only days in more than one way.
I have been consistently angered by the way recycling symbols on products are presented:
1) Not present at all sometimes, on things clearly single-material
2) No contrast so they are hard to locate or see
3) So small as to be unreadable as to what number they are
4) So poorly formed, the number could be a 2 or a 7 or whatnot.