dnlzro
A rational actor will act on available information. It’s entirely possible that someone unhappy with Mullvad switches to an alternative that is even worse (on whatever dimensions they care about), and they just don’t know it. The question is whether they could’ve expected that outcome on a balance of probabilities.
I feel like the default assumption for a company in the privacy space is that they are close to politically neutral (0). Certainly skewing libertarian, but probably not more right (+1) than left (-1). So, if you see that your money is explicitly being siphoned to right-wing political parties (>0), and you don’t like that, it’s rational to switch to an alternative (expected value = 0).
Also, “very likely” to be better isn’t necessary, because switching costs are minimal.
Also also, saying that Proton’s founder is “outwardly MAGA” is really oversimplifying things. I’m not sure what your viewpoint actually is — maybe you’re just expressing someone else’s — but I’d encourage you to read: https://medium.com/@ovenplayer/does-proton-really-support-tr...
I personally do not ever see myself voting for (or otherwise indirectly supporting) a politician that speaks like that, regardless of whether you can steelman it with more neutral language.
However, it does seem that this Swedish party is willing to "repatriate" even Swedish-born citizens, so at least they're consistent.
I think that's what a lot of people in this thread are missing. There are alternatives to Mullvad, so it's pretty easy to take your money elsewhere if you're unhappy with where it's being spent right now.
The counter-reaction to the reaction is so dumb. If you think it's silly to boycott a company because of a co-founders political donations, fine. But it's just as silly to try to argue people into not boycotting. Live and let live.
"I'm surprised the co-founder of a freedom of speech company is contributing to a political party that wants to force religious charter schools to close."
Just one suggestion: Could you add another sort order for the list view based on the number of “closet picks”? It would be cool to see which films are most popular among Criterion Closet guests.
Perhaps less nesting is better in that it is more readable. But if you compensate by writing more complex CSS, then I don’t see how that’s an improvement.
Please consider making the source code available. I’d love to make something similar for your friends across the pond (in Canada).
But it isn’t obvious that a line cut off from its descendants should be a widow, so that mapping isn’t ideal either.
I propose “bereaved” — a parent cut off from its children.
But what a sad world we live in…
Was unfortunate to read about the instances of OSS contributors being billed for their usage though. Reptile was earning a lot of good will for that, so it’d be a shame if they weren’t actually following through.
1. Uninstall Instagram
2. Install Dull
3. Use Instagram via Dull
The use case for a Safari extension:
1. Uninstall Instagram
2. Install the Safari extension
3. Use Instagram via Safari
Am I missing something that is obviously better about Dull (which couldn't be replicated by a Safari extension)?
(P.S. this is not meant to discourage the developer of Dull; I like the idea and your implementation seems really good.)
No, neither solves the problem. And even if `balance` did work, it's not a good substitute because you don't usually want your line lengths to all be the same length.
See also, related CSS Working Group issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/191
1. Pocket Casts exists as a paid app for years (the cost is paid upfront).
2. Pocket Casts goes freemium. All current features are made entirely free. A new cloud file feature is introduced, requiring a monthly/yearly subscription called Pocket Casts Plus.
3. In response to backlash, users who paid upfront are given a lifetime of Plus access.
I get that this could be considered part of a broader trend, but in this case, paid users never lost access to the features they paid for.
Considering the fact that most women's leagues barely get any mainstream attention as is, I think any further fragmentation of sports isn't going to be sustainable.
Also, ignoring the commercial and entertainment aspect of sports, it's just really hard to organize local leagues if they only serve a small portion of the population. Like, even in a large metropolitan area, how many transgender people are there? Of those, how many are interested in a particular sport? Of those, how many are interested enough to form a club?
i.e., unless something fundamentally changes about how leagues are divided, there's going to be perceived unfairness in sports.
As long as things are unchanged, I think the real conversation boils down to who we prioritize: cis women or trans women.