I don’t think that assumption was inherent in the comment
If you want an unpopular feature that doesn’t exist on an open source platform sometimes your only options are to code it, or ask someone else to. The skillset of the feature requester doesn’t change that
What’s new:
And honestly I’d stop there and say “and more”
Also, the summary of the release notes is not the release notes. You cared about every dot point in those release notes equally? There are no larger broad changes?
Why post it here? I personally don’t think every Firefox release is interesting enough to post to the !technology@lemmy.world channel so when a release is interesting enough to post here I figure there are reasons and that they are easy to note along with the URL.
I suspect most people have some feelings are the same because I suspect most people would be unimpressed if the channel included every minor release of everyone’s torch apps. The exact reasons something is interesting varies for people. For some people anything Firefox might be enough. For others it might only be interesting when they do something big like trying to come up with a new solution for tracking ads. Since its a community, I kind of think a good post needs to include the highlights of what is meant to be interesting to help out the others in the community, especially if they might not naturally see the same things as interesting
The Firefox browser itself tells me there is an update. An update could be interesting to read about here and if so I think it makes sense to make the case with the highlights. Like, why did you find it interesting enough to put here?
Personally, I’m pretty inclined to downvote any post that is a link without a short summary or context. I appreciate that’s not everyone.
And personally I think it’s important to say why you downvote. The poster can choose what to do with that information and I’ve got no expectations for them to change how they do things
Downvoted for not giving any sort of summary of the larger features and fixes
I would like to see Telsa and Musk burn but I wish this was reported more accurately. He could get a lot, but only if he delivers:
Under the plan, Musk could receive approximately 423.7 million Tesla shares in 12 separate tranches, each contingent on achieving milestones such as the delivery of 20 million electric vehicles, the deployment of 1 million robotaxis, and reaching $400 billion in EBITDA and an $8.5 trillion market cap
I got through about ten news articles before I got to a reasonably descriptive one:
It describes the 12 milestones needed to unlock the each payment:
For the first milestone the market cap of the company needs to hit 2 trillion (and hit one of five other goals) and its currently at about 1.5 trillion. So by my understanding, if people boycott he doesn’t get the packet. The 7th milestone requires the market cap to reach the market cap that Nvidia currently has (and I presume there is another 1 of 5 goal condition). The 12th milestone, required to get the amount in the article headline, requires the company to reach a valuation thats 150% of Nvidia’s current market cap (and I presume there is another 1 of 5 goal condition).
I agree the amount is preposterous, but I’d argue so are these goals, and so is the simplicity of the reporting.
I think it’s a bubble but I’m also suspicious we’re near peak investment and think it could sustain for a while yet. I wonder what sort of range he’s projecting for the peak and timeframe
In your OP, sure.
But this comment reads as a desired state, and in some situations thats a feature request (in this case it seems like there are architecture / system workarounds):
Did you get an explanation you’re happy with?