Chrome went to a :D above 99. But I believe they changed that, not sure as I use FF now too.

What if it was a form of damage control, where they could claim in the future at lawsuits that they had total transparency at the time of the event.

Please, I’m kidding. But it would be interesting.

I imagine it started with some sub-installations actually giving approximations that were acceptable and summed up, but then some finalizing was not taken into account or something needed to be added after the other processes are finished, and the deadline was close. That last part builds up over time with other quick additions and some annoying stuff that is actually quite performance heavy and not easy to incorporate through the whole installation. “Let’s do it at the end as well.”

No time / budget to change the 100% to 99% as they have to adjust calculations based on the processes that actually do a good job. Although a display change could fake it, priorities are elsewhere.

Dude, that’s literally insane.

Sharing ideas can definitely be worth something when it leads to something actual original/concrete/useful, but on another level.

Most ideas these “creatives” come up with are neither of those + they are not willing to put in some effort to solidify the idea themselves.

The wiki link states software to be included in the definition. Management is not IT of course, but as there exists management in IT is used in the image I’d guess.

And for the love of all that is sacred, that first letter is not a D. And I don’t know what they smoked when creating it.

I couldn’t find a reference to Barbie in your link, or am I missing something?

Ah, because I used a translate app and wasn’t sure if it did it correctly. So as I found the translation funny, I wasn’t sure it was the same thing you were aiming at.

I googled a bit, and perhaps this statement comes from this old Reddit thread here in the first comments.

There it’s mainly used as a joke to describe how Windows is just very backwards compatible in general. The story might have stuck and warped a bit as like it really had a reference to that Barbie game.

‘backdrop’?

Thanks for correcting me, you are right about the image scanning. Added an edit to my statement.

It depends on if you trust Meta. Generally speaking there is end-to-end encryption in WhatsApp, which means only you and the person you chat with can decrypt your messages / media (source). I believe there are some weak spots in group chats, mostly caused by users themselves. Not sure about the new Community function but I’d be careful with what I share there.

Some parties like Apple have decided to scan photos from your device for illegal material (edit: after backlash they dropped this for now, my bad). If using an app like WhatsApp I’d personally be aware that something like that might happen in the future as well. I’d not be surprised if some employees might (temporarily) be able to access more data than widely assumed, for debugging reasons in case of bugs.

Personally I take the risk for pragmatic reasons, but it doesn’t hurt to be a bit cautious / aware.

I would love it if someone edited this example and posted it with two statements near the end that are reversed, implying inconsistent behaviour at random in the list ahead, seemingly making this solution less inefficient.

Hasn’t it just lost its context and somewhat “forgotten” what the intentions of the prompt were?

dodo / pepe as well

Well, in my experience it’s mostly interaction bugs. Quite noticeable when you’re used to Chrome not having these issues.

Well, it depends on your bubble I guess. But personally I’d say it’s underrated and overrated at the same time, but mostly underrated.

It depends on your expectations and way of usage in your toolbox I’d say. It keeps surprising me weekly how fast progress is. But we get used to it perhaps.

Desktop runs great, but Firefox on Android seems to be noticeably buggy here and there sadly. I still use it, but I can imagine that might drive people out of the ecosystem.

Many people get used to the synchronization of their passwords / bookmarks cross-channel. More advanced users have a separate password management for this I’d figure, but that’s not the default for 90% I’d guess.

You’re willingly confirming something you rate as sensitive, trying to bring more credibility to it by being an extra shout and referencing a virtually unverifiable needle in a haystack ‘authority’ as Google, but find the sensitivity a reason for not sharing your information.

How can you reason like this?