Unless you purchased some service from them, you didn't donate to Firefox, because that's a Mozilla Corporation project. Donating to Mozilla Foundation funds their initiatives, but not Firefox.
To Thunderbird, however, we can actually donate to.
At one point, paying for Mozilla's mullvad rebadge would give money to the corp. If you were already going to pay for a VPN, then it's effectively a donation.
Though, just because money goes to the corp, doesn't mean it will contribute to Firefox' development either.
Valve actually encourages devs to only provide Windows builds compatible with Proton, or at least it used to, to the disappointment of some professional porters. Mainly because several devs kept leaving their Linux builds abandoned while still maintaining their Windows ones.
Hopefully developers are being encouraged to target Proton, as it's the subset. Presumably anything that works on Proton will also work on Windows, so it makes sense to target Proton.
If the windows build already performs better than on native windows, why faff around with another build target and all its associated complexities (testing, etc).
Targeting Linux means probably targeting all distros, and that's asking for trouble I reckon.
> Targeting Linux means probably targeting all distros
Valve actually distributes a runtime (or at least used to), that's based on Ubuntu, and provides a stable target for developers who want to release a Linux port.
But I agree in general with your point; if the Windows build already performs great on Linux through Proton, why go through the effort to release a native Linux build?
They still distribute runtime(s). Proton runs inside one of those runtimes. You're talking about 1.0 version, 2.0 was based on debian 10, and 3.0 is based on debian 11.
It still has some assumptions about host system, though, but that's a problem for those who package steam. For example, my non-FHS NixOS provides everything required, and it works out-of-the-box.
You're conflating whether one should feel guilty for supporting an author, and whether the author's speech outside a work matters to understand its intended meaning.
The latter is the actual Death of the author, the former is usually called Death of the author by people who want to separate themselves from the authors they know they can be judged for supporting.
I think my point was distinct from naming this idea (Death of the Author). It wasn't about guilt it was about consequences and those are distinct things.
Also, AIUI Death of the Author is not about whether their beliefs mattered to understand the intended meaning, but instead whether "intended meaning" is even a thing anyway. No need to understand it if it doesn't exist. I prefer in other contexts not to try to guess intentions when I can instead look at the effects and it seems to me our law and practice agree.
Notice for example that while proving attempted murder requires that you wanted the victim to die, murder does not. The fact that they are dead satisfies this aspect of the crime, you aren't innocent of murder just because you didn't intend that the victim would die.
> "you aren't innocent of murder just because you didn't intend that the victim would die."
You might be; from the UK's Crown Prosecution Service guidance website[1]: "Involuntary Manslaughter. Where an unlawful killing is done without an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, the suspect is to be charged with manslaughter not murder.". From Wikipedia[2]: "In English law, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder."
The GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) is crucial there. The intent only needs to be GBH which is way easier to prove, for example weapon use. The prosecutors don't need to prove intent to kill, the death is evidence that you killed somebody (except in the rare cases they can't produce a corpse, for which they have to do more work)
What if there is no GBH intent either? What if you are just being negligent or careless, like speeding while driving thinking you are a better-than-average driver and won't crash, or if you are not speeding and someone runs out in front of you, or if you are throwing roof tiles off a roof as you remove them while thinking people will see and hear what you are doing and walk around the pile, and you end up killing someone?
The death is evidence that you killed somebody, but you can still be "innocent of murder" (and guilty of manslaughter instead. In the UK). That's why there are so many varieties of manslaughter, to determine how culpable the person is, whether they were negligent, whether they were comitting another crime, etc.
If only it were usable for really-correct parsing. In my experience error recovery is so aggressive it will accept broken ASTs without marking any node as an error. Plus, you can't really solve some ambiguities without C-based lexer hacks.
I wonder if targeting the Tree-sitter ABI directly could be a viable way to write more accurate parsers in an actual programming language while piggybacking on the ecosystem. Could tree-sitter's runtime ABI be adapted for GLL parsers instead of GLR? I haven't looked deep into it yet.
Now you're in my wheelhouse! Come check out https://github.com/bablr-lang/. I'm gearing up for a big release announcement here once I fix these bugs and ship all the latest code.
I'm not sure 2015 counts as new, but that's same release that first introduced the JSON extension. There isn't a version of SQLite with JSON expressions but without indexes on expressions. Also, the JSON extension wasn't enabled by default until 2022, so most people using SQLite with JSON have got a version much newer than 2015.
To Thunderbird, however, we can actually donate to.
reply