Ilandar

Potential fragility aside, I think flip smartphones (at least the cheaper ones without a proper outside screen) solved the problem for me since I was never really a one-handed user of my XZ1 Compact. I liked the smaller size because it fit into every pocket safely and the smaller screen was more annoying to use and therefore less addictive. Flips have a similar barrier in terms of having to physically open the device to use it. It's a shame that even the cheaper models are getting the bigger outside screens now, though. It just makes these devices more addictive and more fragile.

Yes, that was my experience at OTR. I worked there for like 7 or 8 months before quitting and they'd only just started the "training" around the time I left and even then it was super slow, like one session a fortnight or something. The HappyWash employee at my place was immediately moved into the store when he completed his traineeship (they had a different one to us) so the company put him on the retail traineeship and lowered his wage back to $16 or whatever it was. Then they hired a teenager to fill the HappyWash role.

Yeah I think that's a decent comparison. There are of course still hobbyists and enthusiasts today who know a lot about cars despite not being professionals working in a related field, but it does feel like the general understanding among the public has fallen because the cultural phenomenon of a father teaching his son about cars has dissipated. Piracy has always been a niche activity but the core skills and knowledges it requires were taught more to millennials than they were to zoomers. If people have grown up with less education about motor engines or desktop computers then it's not surprising they struggle to expand on that later in life.

Acknowledging differences is not "war".

ONE OF US ONE OF US

No worries, it's not surprising you thought that because there are quite a lot of people out there like OP who spread complete misinformation about browsers they dislike/don't use.

You can read this reference to closed source in the most charitable way as alluding to the whole motley of things that render it less accessible.

Not when they use the conjunction "so". If they'd used "and", then sure - there could be any number of reasons. Using "so" as a conjunction like that in the sentence gives it an equivalent definition of "therefore", so it's like saying "Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it's harder for users to investigate", which is clearly an inaccurate statement.

In any case, OP has attempted to shift the goalposts many times in some kind of weird gotcha attempt instead of just admitting they were wrong or worded their argument poorly. If people want charitable interpretations of their misleading or inaccurate statements then they should behave in a manner that deserves them. Going full redditor ain't it.

"Australia" didn't consider it. It was a conservative opposition party in one state that pushed the bill, and it was ultimately defeated.

(Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).

Please show me where you explained that Vivaldi's source code is harder to investigate because "users need to download a 2 GB repo" or a "tarball dump".

Is English your first language? Do you understand the definition of "so" in the sentence you typed?

This was a pretty underwhelming article. Most of it is a pretty uninteresting story about how the site was founded, which isn't really relevant to the headline.

But that's not what you claimed. Direct quote from the article (bold emphasis is mine):

Vivaldi users point out that the built in blocker is noticably worse than uBlock Origin, with some guessing that Vivaldi doesn’t fully support uBlock Origin filterlists (Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).

You clearly implied that the reason Vivaldi's source code regarding ad-blocking is harder for users to investigate is because it's closed source. This is not true.

This article has some misinformation in places. Like it claims Vivaldi's ad-blocker cannot be investigated further because the project is closed source, but the only closed source part of Vivaldi is the UI (approximately 5% of the total code). The ad-blocker C++ code is published along with the other 95% of the browser's code.