no, it looks like it was a separate project, but stored in the same bucket. In the time I had access to the bucket (it's no longer public), it looks like they were scraping images from a dating site/app and each directory represented a profile.
That game data is text, and that you reverse the game by hitting backspace are interesting ideas. I'm curious if there is any utility beyond novelty though. It's certainly very creative, I'll be thinking about it.
A lot of the money they make from Firefox usage gets spent not on Firefox or the web but on social justice activism, which is invariably exclusionary of ordinary European and American men.
For example, they have an entire sub-fund devoted to nothing but ideological activism in Africa:
They don't help men - the app is exclusively given to women - because "The issue" is, as they put it, that "In Tanzania, older men are the primary decision-makers in households and local communities".
They could fund things useful to everyone globally, or even things useful for the web specifically (radical), but they choose not to deliberately. Instead they fund content for competing platforms. That's because Mozilla is a generic left wing NGO that sees the Google/Firefox deal as merely a legacy endowment. Naive geeks use it and send them money, which enables them to divert funding to what they really care about.
Edit: primarily -> a lot of, which changes nothing about the argument
> The money they make from Firefox usage gets spent not on Firefox or the web but primarily on social justice activism, which is invariably exclusionary of ordinary European and American men.
I know facts don’t care about feelings, but according to Mozilla Foundation’s on website it says $22 million since 2015. The most recent financial numbers I found are from 2022, which lists “software development” expenses at $242 million. That’s 1% a year.
I know you’re speaking from a place of feeling aggrieved that some underrepresented person without power somewhere’s life might be made just half-epsilon better, and under the mistaken belief that life is a zero-sum game, but for your own benefit, perhaps you should get informed before spouting off nonsense.
Who am I kidding? Facts don’t care about feelings, and feelings are all that matter.
Your "primarily on social justice activism" affirmation is obviously not true. Most of Mozilla spending is going to staff salaries, including of course paid Firefox developers.
Snow in the Northern Hemisphere is likely to be cleaner by the end of this century — an effect that will partially offset the effects of global warming1.
Global warming has reduced snowfall and accelerated snowmelt in mountainous regions, threatening the supply of fresh water for two billion people worldwide. Snow melts even faster if it is covered with sooty particles of black carbon, which are produced by the burning of wood and fossil fuels.
Dalei Hao at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington, and his colleagues used simulations to assess how much soot will land on snow in the next several decades. They project a reduction in black-carbon pollution in snow-covered regions across the Northern Hemisphere between 2015 and the end of the twenty-first century.
Even if global carbon emissions continue to rise for the next half-century, the amount of solar radiation the snow absorbs because of soot and dust pollution will be 62.3% less by 2100 than when the snow was dirtier. The whitening of the snowpack is expected to slow its loss and increase the availability of fresh water, the scientists say.
It is difficult, but having a clearer picture with more variables accounted for doesn’t hurt, unless you take modern models and try to run them with less accurate, or outright missing older data (which climate change deniers frequently do as a “gotcha” to scientists).
I don't really understand the connection between increased adult YA readership and the culture war stuff that the article tries to make.
Seems to me the author just dislikes YA. Pretty sure the "think of the children," hand wringing would occur regardless
Well that makes sense if you think the author dislikes YA, as she obviously does not. She just very much dislikes the idea that grown adults can co-opt a genre not made for them and then police it by only taking into account their own stunted values. Most importantly though, it seems that she mostly hates that there's so many excuses for these people's behaviour, and that adults partake in YA circles so unapologetically. The connection, knowing this, is then quite clear.
YA, like "New Age" 30 years ago, is not a genre. It's a marketing category.
Marketers built a profile of the buyer they want to target in their minds - a glorified stereotype. The buyers themselves didn't identify with the label.
But the marketers then demanded products tailored to this stereotype. And of course, many authors caught on, and were willing to move towards the marketers caricature of what they had in common, in order to get access.
So there's no co-option here. People are just fighting over a marketer-created niche. The niche is a bad fit to reality (in more ways than the audience hardly being young adults) but it's got enough money behind it that it's not easy to challenge it.
It doesn't seem to me like it is a direct choice of adults to consume juvenile media, rather all media has adjusted to the curse of the marginal user and prefers to market garbage that can be sold to anyone.
That doesn't apply to books though. As books aren't advertised the same way as any other media. Most books are advertised just through reviews and word of mouth. People decide to read juvenile media because their juvenile friends recommended it to them.
That didn't apply to books, plans for movies and the multi media franchise are faster now, discussions on day time TV might be manipulated with largely false controversy to imply parents should read all this stuff, etc.
That being said, I don't see much connection between the G/PG blockbuster related adult readers and the coming-of-age book auditors.
I read article and author dislikes both YA and adults. Autor also conflates kids books with YA books.
Autor also conflates conservative anti-lgbt movement with pretty much anyone who reads youth adult literature which makes even less sense. The calls to remove books with lgbt content from libraries are purely political and have zero to do with what books are read by adults.
Tell me where any of that happens (dislike for YA, dislike for adults, conflation between YA and children's books, conflation between anti-lgbt with anyone reading young adult literature). Like, you're getting close to the actual premises, but I feel like misinterpreted the entire article on purpose just to make it sound very ridiculous. Yes, it's weird to assume that some people that read YA are the people that don't want kids reading LGBT content. but that's why the author sets this up by talking about how these people are just as immature as the audience the books are supposed to be targeting. These people that only read YA want a say regarding what gets put into libraries as if they're some sort of authority despite being at a grade 7 reading level is what the article leads up to. Now whether or not you want to follow that slippery slope with the author is your perogative, but it seems completely unfair to misrepresent them as crudely as you have.
> but that's why the author sets this up by talking about how these people are just as immature as the audience the books are supposed to be targeting. These people that only read YA want a say regarding what gets put into libraries as if they're some sort of authority despite being at a grade 7 reading level is what the article leads up to
And you do not see how logical conclusion from that is that author simply dislikes YA literature? And adults too, since there is so much disgust about them, gasp, existing and enjoying entertainment.
Author literally claims it is predatory for an adult to read YA books.
Yes, when you make up negative claims about groups, purely out of nowhere, with zero argument or evidence they are true, then it is reasonable to assume you simply do not like them. Otherwise you would give them basic respect and checked up some date before making stuff up.
Not saying chronic exposure can never have adverse effects