No browser uses a different engine yet (presumably because Apple only allows them to offer this in the EU, under draconian conditions).

Hmm yeah, I guess the question is: is it overly complex if I do want to store my backup of my Nix config online, version-controlled, preferably publicly?

That’s neat!

Is that just because your four servers aren’t used for anything that need a secret? e.g. I wanted to put my wifi password in there, and the password for my user account.

How do you access the private Git repo then? Don’t you need a secret to access it?

Copy one file over and it’s set up for you.

So, I’ve only played around with NixOS on a Raspberry Pi, but… Don’t people usually split their config up in multiple files, and then store than in a Git repository?

The process then still is: check out that Git repository, except there’s another step: copy over your private key so that you can decrypt your secrets.

Is that correct? Or did I make things needlessly complex for myself?

Oh yeah I’m with you there. I think the project kinda grew beyond its initial goals, and now it’s hard to rename. Made more complex by GSConnect being by an independent developer from the KDE Connect team, I think. But the naming is confusing for sure.

Where are you installing KDE Connect? You only need it on your Android phone. On your computer, you only need the GSConnect extension.

So what I think -but again, not a lawyer- is that the previous version also didn’t grant Mozilla ownership of your data. For example, maybe there was already a legal limit to what rights the ToS can transfer to Mozilla, and the new version just re-iterates the existing law?

Well, it will always be there as long as Firefox is also there.

The post sounds like it the initial terms weren’t thought to be broader than the current ones, but that that apparently wasn’t clear when they were read by regular people. As a non-lawyer, it seems entirely possible to me that the legal ramifications of both versions are the same, as often things that will read one way to me, turn out to actually mean more specific things in a legal context.

Could some savvy code-reader go through it to see if something about the data collection has changed?

Yeah, I think it’s telling that it’s been a while now and nobody has pointed to any suspicious code.

Can you delete or edit your own content?

There shouldn’t be the need to clear a name, because you shouldn’t be smearing someone’s name who’s giving away their work. It’s fine to distrust it, but then just don’t use the software.

Probably not what you’re after, but if it’s really just about PDFs, note that Firefox has an excellent PDF reader built-in. Oh, but I guess a browser extension can’t access that?

https://www.mozilla.org/products/vpn/

And soon: https://thundermail.com/

A comprehensive answer is out of scope and probably best given by a true accessibility specialist, but for example, if you only use <div> tags for everything, a lot of the screen reader’s affordances for navigating are unusable. Images that carry information but not in their alt text are another simple example.

And then there are parts where JS could actively help. For example, if you have a tabbed interface, but clicking a tab results in a full page refresh, the screen reader loses all context.

Also keep in mind that there’s more to assistive technology than just screen readers, e.g. sufficient colour contrast and keyboard navigability are important to many people. Too many websites still get those basics wrong.

Not necessarily, unfortunately. (Though I guess technically it’s easier to throw up barriers using JS, but it’s not an inherent quality, and leaving it out doesn’t automatically make it good.)

Heh, just deleted my reply - thanks for covering all that, you’re exactly right :)

deleted by creator