Amigo5862

> Also they over-hired in the pandemic and need people to leave because their attrition numbers were too low for 2022 and 2023.

That's the real reason. Making people quit is cheaper than layoffs.

No, actually I just don't have time for idiots who make unfalsifiable statements when they've been shown they're wrong.

(BTW, uncrashable Chrome just "crashed" for me: all windows, across two profiles, stopped accepting input properly. But hey, Flash bad!)

LOL.

very popular != primary selling point

LOL

> Flash was never a core part of the web

LOL.

> That was the problem: it was loosely bolted onto browsers but the company behind it didn’t understand or care about the web

Ah, right, that's why they made this thing for the web and supported it for a couples of decades: they didn't care about it.

> spent their time inventing random new things for demos trying to get you to build on top of their platform INSTEAD of the web, and was never willing to spend time on support.

Oh, so exactly like the current biggest browser (i.e. JavaScript) vendor in the world, you mean?

> Because it is

LOL

> Both of those were hard to use without crashing the browser

I, quite literally, never experienced that. Are you actually old enough to have ever used Flash? Because it doesn't seem like it.

> the primary selling point for Chrome originally was that it used process sandboxing and so when Flash crashed you wouldn’t lose every open window

That was most definitely not the primary selling point of Chrome. The process sandboxing was definitely nice, but because Chrome crashed (and crashes) with or without Flash.

> whereas what we’re seeing now are complex attacks requiring considerable investment finding ways to get around the layers of precautions

So you mean, like with Flash.

> It’s like saying that there’s no difference between leaving your money under the mattress and putting it in the bank because banks still get robbed

No, it's really not like saying that at all.

That wouldn't particularly surprise me. I never used ActiveX, so I can't really speak to that one. But then, there also weren't many (public) websites that I ever ran into that wanted to use it.

> In contrast, JavaScript is a core part of the web and is executed within the browser in a sandboxed environment. This means that JavaScript operates with limited access to the system's resources, reducing the risk of system-level security breaches.

Flash (and probably ActiveX) were also executed in a "sandboxed environment", including "limited access to the system's resources". All 3 have (or well, had, in the case of Flash and ActiveX) regular vulnerabilities - including JavaScript. JavaScript is not any better than Flash or ActiveX and I really don't understand why people pretend it is.

BTW, Flash was definitely a core part of the web in its heyday, too.

ETA: Oh, and Java was also executed in a sandbox (and a virtual machine!) and had plenty of vulnerabilities back when applets were a thing.

At least with Flash, ActiveX, and Java you could choose not to install them and most sites would continue working. For JavaScript you have to install (and trust) some third party extension to block it and then no sites work...

Then why not call it an iteration, or a round, or a week, or a month, or a cycle, or literally anything other than "sprint"?

Oh, right, because you're supposed to sprint it because that's maximally profitable (in the short-term, anyway).

Not that I use voice assistants very regularly, but I decided they've become completely useless after Christmas when I was driving back home and had this (almost-verbatim) exchange with my Android around 11am:

Hey Google, remind me when I'm home to ...

"I can't remind you at a place" - pretty sure it used to be able to???

Hey Google, remind me tomorrow to ...

"Ok, what time do you want me to remind you tomorrow?"

Noon

"Ok, I'll remind you at noon today"

???????????????????????????

It includes the levels themselves. However, there's not any current way to play them. https://pretendo.network/ is working on it.

The only thing I see that this adds over existing docs-to-HTML tooling is that it uses a wikipedia-inspired theme.

Meanwhile on the negative side, it adds hallucinations. You say you "cut back" on them but as teraflop's comment shows, it still has plenty.

BTW: even the Mastodon link from your OP says "wiki not found" for me.