Mozilla suggests policies [1] (which, in turn are capable of default-setting or enforcing most prefs and has proper release notes) and has removed a bunch of pages that previously recommended directly editing prefs.js or shipping user.js (which had been changed in backwards-incompatible ways before when the parser was swapped).

[1]: https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/

To be fair, Mozilla-affiliated developers have accomplished some serious cleanup in recent years. New & redesigned features are fake tabs with special permissions instead of that unholy intertwining of web standards and local UI in C++. Storage is almost-proper sqlite3. Dynamic linking against system libraries old&new just works(tm). Even the vendored Rust packages more or less build fine, now even across multiple compiler versions. Plus, AMDs new-ish CPUs with ginormous L3 brought recompile (and thus, bisect) times to almost reasonable levels, so that is not as pressing of an issue any more. I would guesstimate only 25 years left at the current speed till Firefox can be considered maintainable again.

And only 24 years left until Ladybird is usable as a replacement. /s

Its not just that each new "feature" is unnecessarily difficult to disable, and already active-with-privacy-side-effect by the time you notice.

Most new "features" are by now covered by an existing setting and/or policy. Yet I recognize a pattern of introducing new "but did you opt out of THIS NEW thing?" or "but did you opt out of VERSION TWO of this previously rejected thing?" setting/policy. It has become unsafe to upgrade to new Firefox releases, because each one will disrespect previous user choice in another unexpected way.

If you don't want new features, don't upgrade it, what in the non-sequitur is this? I get the argument that it SHOULD be OPT-IN rather than OPT-OUT, but that would require annoying pop-ups every upgrade that explains the new features and ask if you want to OPT-IN. That is more burden on the developers and will annoy more users than benefit.

If you are concerned, they do have what is called a 'changelog' that will explain all of the new features and how to switch them off if you like.

You might want some of the new features (such as TLS 1.3, WebP, some security fixes, etc), but avoid some others (such as HSTS, many new web APIs, secure contexts, AI, some CSS commands, etc), and want to keep some features that are removed in later versions (such as several settings, and many other things).

You're right, you may want some features but not all of them. That is why firefox provides the flags for you to turn features on/off. You mention that a user might wast "TLS 1.3, WebP, some security fixes, etc". I would argue that if a user knows what these are, they are capable of working out a flag.

Not all of the functions can be controlled by the flags, though.

This new "please accept cookies and scripts to prove you are running Google Chrome without Adblockers" Internet does not exactly look like mission accomplished to me. And that is before we even get to the part of the Internet that goes straight to "please run this Android app so we can ask Google who truly owns your device".

If Mozilla was not busy "offering" (renamed the no-thank-you setting once again) so many "experiences" they could be doing much of the same stuff they did back in the day.

I sometimes use lwn.net as an exemplary showcase of things non-tech journalists should learn (e.g.: add references whenever paraphrasing material some or all readers might have direct access to)

As long as grid upgrades & maintenance continue to work reasonably well across western Europe, bad examples from the US are not particularly worrying. Economics of scale still very much apply; there is a point in maintaining expensive grid infrastructure. Especially so when using it to improve other expensive infrastructure, such as electric high-speed passenger rail.

I would love for steam to offer even the complement: Only distribution & SSO services, so I can have fast downloads and quick non-replayable-auth for games I buy/subscribe elsewhere (not subject to steam peculiarities about squeezing out maximum price for each region by purchasing power).

Of course, that would need to have a wildly different fee schedule than when they carry major legal & reputational risks plus more significant customer support volume.

One would expect the results to be highly correlated to corrected vision which is all over the place.. but they get suspiciously tightly grouped results.

Did they maybe not measure how many pixels we can see.. but rather how laughably bad COTS IPS are at contrast, as the examined pattern approaches their resolution? I wonder what happens if you repeat that with a reasonably bright 16K OLED.

Bernstein also published a simple checklist [1] of what people are likely to do wrong if not ruled out by design. Bullet point 2 on that list was:

> Your implementation leaks secret data when the input isn't a curve point.

[1]: https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/

Having your customers suddenly require proprietary machinery (only sold/licensed by you) to unlock the full potential of your upgraded product line.. does seem compatible with the SF startup way of thinking.

It will be interesting to see what they do next.

The SF approach would be to lock down every aspect of the new zippers with as much proprietary BS as possible for as long as possible, charging high fees the whole time and quite likely causing relatively poor market penetration. Relatively few people will pay $50 extra for a thinner zipper on a typical jacket. To combat this, one SF approach might be to pump out ads and branding to to make the new zipper a status symbol.

e.g. Will we start to see fashion designers paid to highlight the new zippers on their products rather than hiding them behind flaps or in folds? Are Brando biker jackets about to trend again?

On the other hand, YKK might simply do what they've been doing for the last century: Obliterate the competition by doing what they do better and cheaper. This is how they took the market from manufacturer's like Talon. They might maintain control of their new zipper tech with patents, etc., but they might also make the tooling affordable and try to maximize uptake by manufacturers.

I have a vintage reproduction of a 1920's cafe racer with a Talon zipper on it. That thing needs to be babied. Zip it up wrong and the slide will bend, teeth will stop engaging, etc.. If you want a jacket that you'll think twice about zipping up (e.g. "Am I really so cold it's worth it?"), get something with a vintage Talon zipper. The first thing that stood out to me as a falsehood in this article was the claim that this is the first upgrade to the zipper in a century. YKK has been quietly making them better and better that whole time.

yes, and the fact that the article brushes over this and is so breathless -- it's an ad, right?

My first question was: if they remove the tape, how do you affix it to the garment? and you're right, the article glides over the fact that this company, which is largely a monopoly, is creating garments that will apparently require a proprietary device to repair.

It's like a Juicero ad, but for your fly. I'm good.

But its not anything like a Juicero ad is it? They are not halting production on all other zippers or charging you a monthly zipper refill fee… but adding a new product line with more and different possible uses. An innovative new design for a product most don’t think twice about. It’s pretty cool, really.

They surely learned something from Microsoft.