The joke’s not about Firefox; you could swap in any Linux program.

It’s perhaps not as featureful as others mentioned but if you like Rclone then Round Sync is a solid option.

Here’s one theory: the AI hype is a front so the wealthy can secure land deals justified by the need for new data centers and thereby further consolidate resources and power.

It’s not that implausible; Richard Ankrom managed something similar (on an interstate no less).

I’ve been curious about yash but haven’t tried it. What do you like about it?

As an interactive shell or for scripting?

Here’s an alternative perspective.

The reciprocal word I’ve typically seen is “liberal”.

I think that would depend on which animal rights

The word takes on a new meaning for me in light of this comment

I think I can live with that

I think the default history sorting mode in Firefox is “By Date”; it actually lists websites by date alphabetically which confused me for a while. Changing the sort mode to “By Last Visited” gives the reverse chronological order that I would expect.

Missed opportunity to say “right back cat-cha”

I prefer the term “commensalist”

Here is their FY 24–25 Audit Report. To wit, their net assets were $296.6 million, while their total internet hosting expenses were $3.5 million. So the claim that hosting expenses make up a trivial fraction of their total assets would appear to hold true even moreso today than a decade ago.

Granted, the FAQs for the report state that “The vast majority of […] revenue came from donations […], as well as investment income, Wikimedia Enterprise revenue, and other revenue primarily related to a cost sharing agreement with the Wikimedia Endowment”.

I remain suspicious of the large increases in “Salaries and wages” year-over-year compared to other expense categories.

Operating expenses don’t necessarily equate to total expenditure. The article also mentions that fifteen executives took home a six-figure salary in 2015; that doesn’t strike me as particularly efficient.

Notwithstanding, what I originally said was not prescriptive. People are free to spend their money as they see fit. Even I have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation in the past and still believe that they provide invaluable resources for the common good.

Where I take issue is the fact that the messaging in their campaigns often gives the impression that the organization is scraping by on user donations, whereas in reality they’re sitting on a pile of assets that would ostensibly be in the 99.9ᵗʰ percentile of household net worth in the US.

I should have specified: I don’t agree with every part of the article, but I shared it for this excerpt:

The Wikimedia Foundation solicits donations from Wikipedia users every year, even though its expenses ($2 million to run hosting and servers) are vanishingly small compared to its profits. Wikimedia has increased its spending over 1000% since 2008 and sits on $97.6 million in assets as of 2016.

They probably don’t need donations.

Not saying I agree with it (on account of being a tech worker), but this blog has some hot takes to that effect.