I was trying to recall just how early "Big N" was a nickname for Nintendo, thinking it must have predated the Nintendo 64, but it took a bit of digging to find anything concrete:
My naive first thought was "Captain N: The Game Master" but that wasn't quite "Big N." But it was fun to visit a bunch of old Nintendo-related articles.
It's funny to me because I've never heard anyone refer to Nintendo as "Big N" there's a handful of other things referred to as Big N, Nintendo is not one of them.
I replied in another thread [1] but this was the earliest thing I could find in online resources, but maybe your recollection would lead to something earlier:
Hey at least Chrome lets you can bypass SSL errors. Firefox makes it impossible to bypass SSL errors if the site uses HSTS. So much for the browser for power users.
Firefox sticks to the spec, Chrome makes you type out base64 manually to ignore the spec.
The TLS errors that aren't unbypassible by specification (i.e. HSTS, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6797) can be bypassed on Firefox just fine. It's only the ones where the spec says bypassing the error shouldn't be possible where Firefox takes a hard stance.
Chrome had to alter their bypass string several times because vendors documented the override rather than fixing their insecure crapware. It makes total sense to me that Firefox does the same.
My installation of Firefox defaults to plain HTTP when I type a URL into the address bar. No amount of about:config fiddling seems to turn it off.
It is rubbish software, the developers routinely ignore fixing actual bugs in favor of new features, and I wish we had a better alternative that wasn't married to Google.
This works fine for me, so I don’t know what’s causing it to be different for you. The key in about:config is dom.security.https_only_mode and I have that set to “true”.
If you want to set this without using about:config you can go to Settings and search “https” you’ll see “https-only Mode” there and you can turn it on for all windows, private windows oonly or none. There is also an exception list should you want that.
I agree that it should do what you entered. However, it would make sense for the default settings to match the specification, unless the specification is no good (which, in the case of HSTS (and many other things in WWW), I do think the specification is no good).
Ah yes, software should leak everyone else's credentials to me because I want it to, forget keeping their information safe and secure, forget the GDRP.
Nobody said that. If you tell your software on your machine to leak your credentials, then yes it should. And since it's your data and you're the one telling it to do it, I'm reasonably confident that gdpr says that's completely above board. (Like, I'm no lawyer so take with appropriate grain of salt, but it's generally described as saying that you have to have user permission to do things with data, which the user agent acting on your orders very much does have.)
Yeah. Let's face it: more realistically, they want to cut pensions without getting thrown out of parliament. And getting every 16 year old in the UK a free PS5 (is it still PS5? I guess maybe PS6) on their birthday is far cheaper than pensions ...
No, it’s not the economy. All the people my age who have children are the less financially and intellectually equipped to be parents. Yet they are doing fine.
Are they? What's the current status of their retirement accounts? What are their plans for funding their kids' educations? Do they own their own homes?
There's a difference between being able to survive and living a good life. The reason the more financially literate and educated people put off having kids is because they care about their own futures and the futures of their kids. They know they can't work forever and they know that the current political environment is one of removing and undoing every single social safety net out there. Meaning, a mistake today very well could mean homelessness/eating cat food/etc or ultimately starving to death.
My father-in-law is 72 and still needs to work to pay the bills. He can't retire. That's the future for the less financially and intellectually equipped parents and their kids in the current political climate.
When aging population cannot be supported by enough young hands joining the economy, retirement accounts won't mean much. One can't eat digits, or take them as medicine. Money is as useful as you can exchange them for somebody's work.
If someone is struggling to take care of themselves, why would they have children? Heck, if you have people working 80+ hours a week just to stay housed, when can they find time to have kids?
Cruel societies punish people for having kids. We have a cruel society. The 90s "welfare queen" talk caused the US federal and state governments to gut social programs specifically designed to aid and support people in having families.
For so many people, affording the necessities requires 2 incomes. Childcare either takes out an income or it incurs a huge new necessity.
And then there's always the impact of "what if the child has a disability" in that case most people are really truly screwed in the US if that happens.
I see what you mean, but it's simply doesn't work this way. Raising kids is so life changing that it has no money equivalent, like you can't buy another life. So if that mentioned self-interest is strictly materialist, one won't choose to have kids no matter how generous are welfare programs. We can find moral or practical reasons to support (or tax-relieve) those who does this work for the future of humanity, but it has nothing to do with low birthrate. You can't fix it by throwing money anywhere. It's a problem of ideals.
> All the people my age who have children are the less financially and intellectually equipped to be parents
Well, yes. Because they've not quite got the heavily broadcast message that having children is a bad financial decision. The West is a society that respects wealth and has a vague distaste for children and parents.
The UK has an ongoing debate about the two-child limit on child benefit payments. Whenever this is discussed, furious people appear out of the woodwork to condemn those who dare to have three children as financially irresponsible.
An additional child at £17.25 a week is an intolerable cost to the taxpayer, apparently. And you wonder why people don't have more children.
In the UK, more often than not, when a couple has more than 2 children they are often part of a certain demographic. The idea of this demographic and its culture becoming over-represented is not popular amongst a large portion of the population, regardless of what societal wide effects that may have.
In addition and in general, paying people to have kids is not a good solution. More often than not, it leads to less educated, less capable people becoming baby mills and ruining the rest of society with their poorly raised children. 2 children is fine. It's almost replacement level.
He was conscripted in April and the project successfully continued on and ported to Android 16 in June. It's doing fine. It was a massive hit to the project but it won't die because of it.
It came unwound when we allowed mass immigration to destroy the wages of the lower end and stopped building to respond to the housing demand. That can be easily undone, if the powers to be allowed it.
It came unwound when we allowed enterprises to destroy the wages of the lower end and stopped building to respond to the housing demand. That can be easily undone, if the powers to be allowed it.
Is it? 42% of internet users used ad blockers last year. That's an upwards trend and is surely going to be much higher on a niche browser compared to browsers that are installed by default. Firefox does not come with an ad blocker by default.
That's option c, ignore EU law and forever give up the possibility of doing business there. The larger a company is the less likely it is to find that route palatable.
If you are taking EU citizens' data when they access your website from within the EU, then of course the EU will prosecute you for that.
Just like they will prosecute you for scamming EU citizens, for hacking EU citizens, for impersonating EU citizens, and anything else you can do to EU citizens while being located somewhere else.
Because they explicitly worded the law to threaten exactly that. It's the exact same thing the US does with the financial system. They intentionally claim extraterritorial jurisdiction; it is doubtful you would want to try calling that as a bluff.
Big N, really?