Thanks for improving on ACF. The plugin went downhill after the creator stepped away, IMO.
A while back, I bought a lifetime "Pro" license for ACF. It worked great for years. The last few times I tried ACF though, the admin experience felt degraded. My impression was their early customers had become an afterthought.
Looking forward to trying SCF. I have higher hopes for the plugin now.
Chrome is today’s Internet Explorer both in terms of market share, and use of non standard features to push a companies dominance.
Safari is today’s Internet explorer in terms of being bundled with systems as a requirement.
Ultimately, these analogies trivialize the actual state of the browser ecosystem in the 90s and early 2000s, because the computing landscape was so different.
The claim there was never about the OS being spyware though so that link feels like a stretch even then.
It’s always been about server and infrastructure access. But beyond that, the Prism leaks mostly applied to telecoms.
A lot of conspiracy minded folks failed to see the forest for the trees because they failed to grok the entire infrastructure between the device in their homes and the greater world.
It’s much easier to think the device in your hand is betraying oneself than to think about the immense number of other components like telecoms, servers, MitM etc that comprise modern communication.
But those are parlor tricks. Yes, the United States forces Apple and Microsoft to turn over data on a regular basis; everyone from India to Brazil demands the same thing. It's non-unique. The United States and it's FIVE-EYES partners clearly have more capabilities on the table; they literally control these businesses, up to a certain point. If you're unwilling to acquit telecoms and server providers for installing backdoors, then it's a no-brainer to implicate Microsoft, Google and Apple for knowledgeably shipping compromised client software too.
That's somewhat true, but the only other relevant browser is treating the internet like it owns it.
I'm sure it's wrong to "hold the web back", but I'm also afraid of when Google finally takes over the internet. Because those "don't be evil"-days are in the past.
Safari today has very good support for ratified web standards though. Looking through caniuse, the browsers are roughly equivalent with variances between them.
Most if not all the web feature that are not supported in Safari are things I resolutely do NOT want in a browser though.
Stuffing things in a browser is not good for anybody…
> Stuffing things in a browser is not good for anybody…
Food for thought:
Have you ever considered that the demand for this functionality in the browser only exists because it is forbidden natively? I've got no use for cross-platform 3D APIs, game streaming functionality or even WebRTC in my browser when it comes down to it; but it makes plain sense that people want to push this functionality to the browser because Apple resists it natively. That's just supply/demand at work.
I doubt that’s actually true (though maybe it is, I don’t know). Anyway 3D APIs are implemented in Webkit, as well as WebRTC and co and many other APIs.
I’m talking specifically about having access to the bluetooth stack, having access to the device’s vibrations, etc.
Apple making a conscious choice to be cautious about including privacy/security harming features is not holding the web back. It's putting users first.
Chrome's reckless and indifferent approach of including every API under the sun is being used by advertisers today to track users through comprehensive browser fingerprinting.
One can also say it’s a duopoly of two suboptimal browsers (factoring all Chromium based browsers together).
Even though other options exist “technically”, users on the two (3?) popular mobile and desktop OS experience a great deal of platform friction when opting to make their own choice (if at all possible like on iOS).
Not that I disagree on the duopoly part, but truthfully there’s only one third browser engine in play and that’s Gecko/Firefox.
Which, imho isn’t any more optimal than WebKit or Blink.
Granted, perhaps if the duopoly didn’t exist, it could get more resources. After all they did once dethrone IE6, but I think that was as much Microsoft’s blunder as it was Mozilla’s success. I’m not sure Apple or Google are making the same blunders today.
It is possible that I'm missing a bigger picture where Mozilla is pushing the envelope with Firefox.
We've crystalized around a specific role for each browser (e.g. Chromium brings in whatever webstandards it needs to pretend to be an OS, Safari tries to keep up while also sneaking Apple ecosystem facilities, Firefox... keeping up?) and there is no real innovation. Of course, we have better ways to not-block-ads, scrape user telemetry, or ai-whatever-that's-good-for... but nothing substantial towards improvements for the people using browsers.
What platform friction to users experience installing a different browser on Android? I'm aware few users actually choose to do it, but I don't recall any resistance from the OS to installing Firefox, making it the default, and keeping it that way.
Not just that, but forbidding any other browser engine on iOS and forcing Safari as the only browser allowed on the platform is completely abusive and anti-competitive. It's one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.
Only in the EU. Highlighting that that the only reason they’ve changed their mind is because of regulatory pressure. Android allowed alternative engines on day one, iOS allows it, what, 17 years after launch? It’s still fair to criticise Apple for the time it took and the extra lengths they’ve gone to in order to only allow it where they’ve been forced.
No other iOS browser engines have been approved, or even exist at this point. Probably won't see any real alternative browsers in the EU until they finish the rumored WebBrowserKit or whatever, to help contain JIT services.
So now we'll find out whether this platform is choosing to deplatform this particular speech, now that it's more clear that they're under no legal obligation to do so.
I don't really blame them if they are. The risk:reward for offering essentially a free service to take legal heat on something this "hot" seems like a bad tradeoff for github. Seems like the kind of thing better hosted on some financially fire-walled shell company's website where any losses from a protracted legal battle can fall off into oblivion.
Wishes aren’t statute and GitHub isn’t a public good or commons. There are more valuable efforts for GitHub than fighting sanctions on money laundering code. One can always host the tarball on their website, or the code on their own Gitlab instance. Very common in the edu space.
Freedom of Speech is a principle, a concept, a philosophy. Not a Law
In the US, the 1st amendment prohibits the US government from infringing on a persons natural right to free speech.
"Freedom of speech" is not a law, or provision. Pointing out that a platform "has the right" to violate peoples freedom of speech (and yes it is an infringement of the principle) is both obvious and pointless. People that actually support the principle also have the right to express their deep disappointment that GH would abuse their position of power, abuse the privilege bestowed upon them by the community of open source developers by cowering to the US government and refusing to stand up for the principle of Free speech
First Amendment is the application of the principal of free speech to law
However freedom of speech is also a larger principal then just the first amendment. People seem to only want to focus on the first amendment and government censorship as if that is the only type of censorship
Is it though? Sounds more like a single team's preference, and not necessarily a team of FE engineers