"SingleFile helps you to save a complete web page into a single HTML file. SingleFile is a Web Extension (and a CLI tool) compatible with Chrome, Firefox (Desktop and Mobile), Microsoft Edge, Safari, Vivaldi, Brave, Waterfox, Yandex browser, and Opera."
Don't most browsers do this natively? Firefox saves single pages as html. Chrome saves pages as mhtml which isn't supported in firefox but can be easily converted if there's ever a need.
No it doesn't. Firefox (not sure about Chrome) saves to html, which:
1. Leaves all kinds of css, image file, which might be hundreds for each saved page. SingleFile saves everything in a convenient, working, single file.
2. is not really saving all the info.
I got burned when I was using Mozilla/Internet Explorer to save mhtml files, which ended up not being supported anymore. Additionally, turns out, they were saving the original versions of pages, without the Javascript changes, meaning that all the opened threads of comments I wanted to save were never saved! Never again!
I use LinkDing for website bookmarking and storage/archiving needs. It is a great and stable piece of software. It archives using a Chrome web driver. Sometimes that fails, e.g. on Captchas, very heavy JS sites or sites behind login. Those I save with SingleFile and attach in LinkDing manually. Simple and works!
80k of donations in less than 2 weeks is quite a lot, compared to a lot of other open-source projects.
Heck, Linux Mint gets 15k a month.
And yeah, you are missing the point. The original claim was about 100% of money coming from DHH's friends/buddies/rich kids, and from far-right at that. Hundreds of public donations was merely the sinplest way to debunk the ridiculous claim. The original claim was false.
If we go deeper, we can easily deduct that not only is the 100% number in the claim not correct, but that wherever it might (sic!) be arguably (sic!) correct, even then the number is close to 0%.
Almost always, using absolutes is unwarranted and a sign of stupidity. When the minimal effort to showcase this was used, the stupid argumentation suddenly became "trivial technicalities", in an attempt to escape the accountability after the essense was called into question. If the stupidity displayed was so very much trivial, what does it say about the person who said such clearly incorrect and dubious things initially?
Nitpicking on a rhetorical exaggeration is a form of fallacy, not a serious rebuttal. Throwing in words like "accountability" while doing so makes it look even more unserious. But I'm sure a smart person who couldn't resist the urge to say "stupid" 3 times in one reply can figure that out for themselves.
Saying stuff without thinking is stupid. Not taking responsibility when the stupidity gets called out, is cowardly. Trying to use the "it was joke, maaan" is childish.
What's your idea of a smart responsible adult then? Is it continuing to push on a red herring after being called out thrice? Putting words into someone's mouth instead of honestly engaging with what's being actually said? Attacking your opponent for someone else's actions out of desperation? Throwing a tantrum and resorting to crude insults when challenged? All of this just to defend a white suprematist? Sheesh.
By all means keep doing what you're doing. Just don't act surprised when people don't look up to you and take your words with respect.
That's great advice to all people who fail to see large hazards fast approaching. Like, say, a fascistic kleptocracy that's quickly forming in a large western country.
I doubt that DHH somehow has an impact or even a say in that future fascist kleptocracy with some barely working linux distro, but if you really think that way and you think these actions do anything to damage it, you're incredibly wrong.
All you do is look like extremist weirdos and make moderates and people who couldn't care less about politics be interested in what they're doing. For every complaint I see about omarchy I see a ton from people that just heard about it and started using it, all after the whole DHH is the devil and omarchy is the fascist distro started, which is ironic and honestly hilarious.
Hyper-politicization of open source outside of its domain has ruined it. This is not a new phenomenon but has certainly increased as fringe politics have gone more mainstream and taken advantage by politicians, content creators and your average power hungry bully who wants to use idiots to obtain easy money and power.
> 15 millions dollars that is supposed to "support the linux desktop", but right now is mostly funding its own distro.
There is no general destination to support Linux Desktop. Linux Foundation is not that, in addition to having more money than they need, and spending less than 5% of their budget on actual kernel.
The only way to support Linux and its desktop is to support individual project. Be they separate or part of some distro. That's the beauty of Linux and open-source - all the features and efforts are dynamically leaking elsewhere in the ecosystem.
DHH never promised to support outside projects. Omarchy Foundation is supposed to support Linux via developing Omarchy, putting all the money there, not by having a tax-evation foundation with high-paid executives, distributing a tiny percentage of the budget to some general unmeasurable cause.
Hence why DHH supports Hyprland and not Niri. He said that directly.
If despicable individuals start hating on somebody, reasonable people will have a positive view by default and will be more compelled to try what crazies are trying to ban.
"I don't care what you hate, since I have have seen what you cheer". Quite the opposite: "oh, you hate it, must be good and worthy"
Incorrect. He doesn't blame non-natives. He blames native politicians for allowing incompatible (sic!) non natives in, in way too large numbers. He tells about the problem, the cause of it, and describes how there has been an increased awareness of the problem in many countries and how the political winds changed.
Ah, yeah, sorry, the problem is not about rats, it's the people letting them in. Oh, how racists can decoy. The people he supports are for remigration, which is another way to say deportation. And btw, wasn't he a migrant in the US he loves?
Who is at fault for an infestation of rats in NY? Rats or the environment (trash system)? And what is the best way to solve it - try to change rats (read: change people's individual culture, which might be fine by itself somehere else, but is problematic in NY) or to change the environment (trash collection)?
Rats do what they do, nobody is blaming them per se. They are just not welcome in places they are a nuisance.
When your supplier is threatening to invade and kill your people, and has critical control over supply of parts of your reactor, and regularly commits acts of nuclear terrorism such as droning the newly completed sarcophagus around Chornobyl:
Well, avoiding business deals with that neighbor is the only rational action. Building a Russian nuclear reactor as one of their neighbors is suicidally stupid. At least go to South Korea instead.
The US is also finding out that when it threatens its neighbors and allies that it will lose out on crucial industrial deals, such as Canada and Europe moving away from US military contractors.
There would not be a critical control over the reactor, just the opposite. Finland would control everything and could have even bought fuel elsewhere.
Loviisa station is Soviet-built, has been working amazingly well and till this day has been supplied with the fuel from Russia, despite the war and all.
Nuclear station being a big target on its own is the only negative, among a pile of positives. That's why:
1. Mini-reactors should be developed
2. No, even nowadays, Putin has not really attacked nuclear stations for real in Ukraine. It's been a big no-no. All the rest of the energy infra - yes, but not nuclear stations.
3. If the real war starts with nuclear stations being bombed, it will not matter who build the station, Finland is going to be completely fucked, considering how much of the energy is nuclear. Taking this argument into a logical conclusion, Finland (or any other country) should not have any nuclear reactors on the chance that they will be attacked. This is a silly level of risk management, a very shallow and blind view.
> Unfortunately, the project was cancelled for moronic political reasons.
From Wiki[1], I see:
> In March 2022, in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Finnish Government declared that a rapid independence from Russian energy production is desired, and that the construction of the plant should not continue. Mika Lintilä, Finland's Minister of Economic Affairs, declared that he would not issue a construction permit.
1. Consistent stable long-term energy
2. Controlled by Finland, to minimize all kinds of risks (war foreign influence, cut sea cables, worsening of relationships with other countries, market conditions and economic situation changing.
So what did Finnish politicians decided to do? To cancel the project for nonsense political reasons (let's see how much Finland will be forced to pay in damages), therefore INCREASING the reliance on foreign sources or unstable local sources.
This is the stupidity on the level of "Germany decided to run down all the nuclear powers for the sake of environment". With disastrous results!
"We don't want to allow Russians to build anything" is a statement full of feelings, but not a lot of sense, if one thinks even a little bit deeper.
Finnish oldest Loviisa nuclear station is Soviet based and this has not caused any problems. The nuclear fuel is also being provided by Russia, despite the war.
I think it is reasonable that the Finnish gov't cancelled the permit to build a Russian design reactor while NATO is deeply involved with the largest conflict with Russia since its founding in 1949. However, you raise some good points in your reply. They should have switched to a different design, such as EU, US, Canada, or Korea. All have modern, well-proven reactor designs.
You should read on the history of Finnish nuclear reactors. The disaster of Olkiluoto showed that French can't be trusted.
USA (Westinghouse) nuclesr development was/is in the gutter as well, plus there are risks giving it to the USA (the biggest hybrid and non-hybrid war wager in the world).
Then read about the history of Pyhäjoki/Hanhikivi. Finns really did try to get anyone else, RosAtom was not in the initial running. Unfortunately one after another each candidate was eliminated/wighdrew. In the end there were zero. It is at that point that RosAtom came in and saved Finnish nuclear future. They wanted to do that because the project in Finland (with a very strict Stuk government nuclear safety agency) would be a really good reference for the rest of Western Europe. Check the number of nuclear stations built by RosAtom. They really are very professional and a leader in the field.
What most people are missing in this conversation is that they think that building a Russian nuclear station in Finland would increase the amount of Finnish energy dependency on Russia. In reality it is the exact opposite, the dependency would decrease. There would be more energy produced in Finland, by Finns, instead of importing it via sea cables (can be cut) from other countries, including Russia (yes, Russia!). In case of Putin's malevolence, what would be easier for Putin, to stop providing energy via a cable, or to disrupt the work of the Finnish nuclear station?
The answer is clear. That's my point, the decision makes sense only if you don't think about it. With a little depth, you realize how incredibly emotional and stupid the decision was.
reply