Always appreciate any work spent on any FOSS stuff out there but currently I’m a bit afraid that Gecko disappears into unimportance. So I’d prefer more contributions towards that one project rather than opening new ones.

The issue with browser engines is that it always requires work from two directions. The browser engine must be optimized to render websites as good as possible. And websites must be optimized to be rendered by all the different browser engines.

And (almost) no one is willing to do the latter for engines with a <1% market share. Already now, more and more commercial and non-commercial websites are only working properly with Chrome or its derivates.

As sudo applies only for a single command, removing the cover is more like su, no?

sudo would be more if above every covered button there was a tiny hole through which you could push it with a needle or so.

Is Johnny the brother of little Bobby Tables?

I think it would continue even after it’s own deletion as the binary is already loaded into memory, so process is not dependent on the file system. Still doubt that it’ll complete successfully. Most likely the system crashes in the middle.

I think FreeCad is a great tool once you overcame the initial issues. I think it’s not as user friendly as commercial tools but I think that’s a general issue with smaller projects that don’t have billions of funding.

If you want to support a FOSS alternative, you could engage to make FreeCad better. Make tutorials, report bugs, update the documentation, help with translations, help users on the cmvarious forums and platforms or simply throw in a few bugs for the developers. :)

If I were C++, I’d wear my pants like that.

On the opposite ends of the plus characters I’d put my shoes obviously.

If you consider only the RAM on the developers’ PCs maybe. If you count in thousands of customer PCs then optimizing the code outperforms hardware upgrades pretty fast. If because of a new Windows feature millions have to buy new hardware that’s pretty desastrous from a sustainability point of view.

The study differentiates between male and female only and purely based on physical features such as eye brows, mustache etc.

I agree you can’t see one’s gender but I would say for the study this can be ignored. If you want to measure a bias (‘women code better/worse than men’), it only matters what people believe to see. So if a person looks rather male than female for a majority of GitHub users, it can be counted as male in the statistics. Even if they have the opposite sex, are non-binary or indentify as something else, it shouldn’t impact one’s bias.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Seems like a wild idea as… a) it poisons the data not only for AI but also real users like me (I swear I’m not a bot :D). b) if this approach is used more widely, AIs will learn very fast to identify and ignore such non-sense links and probably much faster than real humans.

It sounds like a similar concept as captchas which annoy real people, yet fail to block out bots.

Thank you. Unfortunately, your link doesn’t work either - it just leads to the creative commons information). Maybe it’s an issue with Firefox Mobile and Adblockers. I’ll check it out later on a PC.

Anyone found the specific numbers of acceptance rate with in comparison to no knowledge of the gender?

On researchgate I only found the abstract and a chart that doesn’t indicate exactly which numbers are shown.

edit:

Interesting for me is that not only women but also men had significantly lower accepance rates once their gender was disclosed. So either we as humans have a really strange bias here or non binary coders are the only ones trusted.

edit²:

I’m not sure if I like the method of disclosing people’s gender here. Gendered profiles had their full name as their user name and/or a photography as their profile picture that indicates a gender.

So it’s not only a gendered VS. non-gendered but also a anonymous VS. indentified individual comparison.

And apparantly we trust people more if we know more about their skills (insiders rank way higher than outsiders) and less about the person behind (pseudonym VS. name/photography).

Agreed! Comments on comments were the last reason I sometimes went back to the original YouTube app!

Does anyone know if there is a way to do one-time donations to Newpipe without signing up for Libera Pay? E.g. did the team publish their IBAN or PayPal account?

True but I’d hope that there’s still some review for the bigger projects. Of course, it’s possible that a malicious link is inserted right before I go there but it’s still more reliable than just chosing the first result on Google.

I often take the link from the project’s Wikipedia page if it’s big enough to have one.