Vincent

They can overlap, yes. Static sites are definitely not automatically better for accessibility.

This feels like people actually went through extra effort to translate it and translate it back again 🤦

Note there's a group of users that larger than the group of users without JS (for whatever reason): users of assistive technology. And they don't even have a choice.

While I'm all for considering the needs of every user... If you get to the point where you're worrying about no-JS users, I hope you've already considered the needs of people with disabilities, whether temporary or permanent.

Edit: oh right, wanted to add: just making a site work without JS doesn't automatically make it accessible to people with special needs.

That's the kind of thing that sounds nice, but in practice I don't think that's what evidence points towards.

De partijencombinatie zegt dat het politieke klimaat is veranderd en vreest dat een minister zo'n bevoegdheid met politieke motieven kan misbruiken.

Ik ben het eens met de vrees, maar... De mogelijkheid dat het politieke klimaat verandert is er altijd al. Liefst heb ik dat mijn politici daar meteen al rekening mee houden, ipv dat we geluk moeten hebben dat het net op tijd verandert om tot dat inzicht te leiden. (Zeker omdat we er nu van afhankelijk zijn dat dat "veranderde politieke klimaat" zelf de wet moet intrekken.)

Om een motto van Bluesky te lenen: de overheid moet zichzelf als toekomstige tegenstander zien.

Pressures like these have historically sometimes led to countries becoming more democratic, so hopefully it'll lead to the UK applying some reforms allowing for a more proportional system. Labour probably has the numbers for it. But just at least as likely nothing will change.

That is true, but all that wouldn't be able to survive if Mozilla were to significantly scale back development.

I'm not sure which button you're talking about, but if it's the one in the sidebar, click "Customise sidebar", and then uncheck "AI chatbot".

By now you would've expected someone to have pointed out what code is actually collecting that data that's supposedly sold.

I don't see how being a non-profit suddenly makes it cheaper to build a secure, modern and compatible browser. (Although I know lots of people underestimate how much effort that takes. But just consider that already Mozilla's doing it for far less money than Google invests in Chrome, for example.)

I fail to understand how they haven't figured out a way out of this seems to me they're using all the money they from Google as if there is no tomorrow... Why on earth also if Firefox is so clearly their main product does it seem to not always be at the centre of their attention?

The answer to the second question is the answer to the first - there have been a ton of attempts at alternative sources of funding, but it's hard to come close to the ~half a billion USD the default search deal provides. So far the branded services you're calling for don't seem to have been able to pull it off, and I haven't seen any signs that donations would be able to either.

(Although as for email with Thunderbird...)