#gitAnnex compute special remote is live and coming soon to an autobuilder near you!

https://git-annex.branchable.com/special_remotes/compute/

I spent a few minutes to write a first compute program for it, which allows, for example:

git-annex addcomputed --to=imageconvert foo.jpeg foo.png

The code to that shows how simple it is to write these. Who will contribute the second one? https://git-annex.branchable.com/special_remotes/compute/git-annex-compute-imageconvert

1.15 cents per mile

Coming out of winter, my car has been able to charge up 10% from #offgrid solar nearly every day this month. And I found a free level 2 charger downtown. So I spent only $4.64 on charging last month.

Updated my home automation today to notice when the car reaches the desired charge level, and dump the solar power to other loads. Which will be a hot water heater eventually.

Alternatively, it might be that they're quoting it as a means to establish a definition. The ToU does use the term one other time.

Executable Form is a term used in the MPL, which #firefox is licensed under.

“Executable Code" is a *quoted* term used in the new firefox Terms of Use.

What are they quoting from if not the license of firefox? And if they're quoting the license of firefox, then don't they intend the ToU to apply to all Executable Forms of firefox?

Which certainly, as far as the use in the MPL goes, means not only Mozilla's firefox binary, but Debian's. And also librewolf's.

I'd love it if a lawyer could weigh in. In the meantime, I will probably be leaving librewolf behind, argh.

"what's your main web browser?" is gonna be quite an interesting interview question for technical jobs now... if they say #firefox, make note that they are unlikely to negotiate on any terms of their contract

I suspect this was a calculated maneuver, the good old ask for a mile and then take an inch.

well Mozilla has blinked

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

"You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content."

Still seems probably problematic, and to be clear, once you're dead to me, you're dead to me.

#mozilla #firefox

People are saying don't worry, #firefox doesn't contain code that will upload all your content to their servers to monetize it.

Well, it doesn't need to. Mozilla is claiming a license to things you post in public or private anywhere, so they just need enough tracking information from their adtech partners to know which posts were made by firefox users. Then they can obtain those posts from their scraping and/or data collection partners (eg facebook) and feed those posts into advertising partner's LLM and use it to generate compelling ads for you that they display in the browser.

As their terms of use puts it, they can "use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content".

I had to mess with some about:config to get disk caching to work, and to get zoom settings to be remembered. Of course these have privacy implications.

switched to #librewolf

I've done some testing with my clock set to April to see how #firefox is going to behave to new users after early March when their blog says it will make acknowledging their new, thieving TOU part of the "standard product experience".

I think it will be as simple as https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ getting a link to the TOU. That page is currently opened in a tab when starting firefox for the 1st time. It does not currently link to the TOU.

For existing users, I think a new firefox release later will make it pop up the TOU page.

I think this will mean that the TOU will apply equally to *all* builds of firefox, including eg from Debian.

https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/WASM_Wayland_Web_WWW/

giant meteor, why have you forsaken us?

irefox

Need a good laugh? #Mozilla's privacy faq now has:

"Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love."

The latest pack of lies from Mozilla

https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/information-about-the-new-terms-of-use-and-updated-privacy/m-p/87922/highlight/true#M33705

Mozilla is now actively gaslighting their users.

I restrung my windchimes yesterday. Same great tones, but now they're also saying "you repaired this". At least there's that.

"You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, 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."

People are reading this in lots of motivated ways to convince themselves it doesn't say what a lawyer wants it to say. But I guarantee you it does. And that's not "our program needs a license to your content to do stuff with it". Nor is it "you'll tell firefox what's appropriate and it will do that, it's your user agent after all". It's not 1999 people.

It's more like "by using firefox at all, you have agreed to this terms of use, and we will monitize you and claim ownership over everything we can"

If #mozilla goes through with this #firefox terms of use, we need to block their user agent from our websites. And I mean anyone who runs a website where users enter or upload content they own.

It's unacceptable to passively sit by and let a browser vendor hoover up licenses to all your user's content.

today's milestone: I can run `git-annex recompute` and it notices there's a new version of foo, and so generates a new version of bar

when you delete the Washington Post from your web browser's start page, and it's replaced with the guillotine icon from @pluralistic.net

Notice it checksummed the result of the second run of the computation and verified it's the same as the first run. That's because this particular computation declares itself to be reproducible. When a computation is not reproducible, it uses a VURL key instead, and learns the hashes of each new run of the computation. Also with --fast, adds an annexed file without running the computation, and so uses a VURL key.

I'm pretty pleased how these peices are fitting together.