Thunderbird team has been developing K9 for years now. This step is a small iteration from a technical point, but significant in that they feel it is stable and complete enough to put their name on.

Thunderbird is technically part of Mozilla but as far as I can tell, they are funded and operate pretty much independently from the browser and other parts of the org.

It is identical. They’ve said that they will continue to release them in parallel with different branding. This has to do with users’ preferences, but also with certain downstream things like network trust and store requirements.

They have said that they will continue to release identical versions of each in the immediate future.

It’s just launched today in beta. I’d expect it to be there eventually, but you can grab it from GitHub if you want to try it.

I’m not sure, but that could be connected to the name change K9➡️Thunderbird. They have said that they will maintain parallel releases of both (identical except for the name/branding) for the immediate future. This release appears to be the identical but may (or may not) solve the issue.

They have been the same team for the past 2 years. I think they have done a pretty good job developing new features thoughtfully and improving the user experience. One thing I’m really enjoying about this release is that they have made it much faster to toggle between accounts.

If they are confident adding their branding, then I take it as a show of confidence in their work.

Short answer, yes.

Finding complex patterns in noisy data is an application that AI is actually well suited for. It still requires human follow-up. Anyway, human experts make mistakes in these areas as well. There is a good chance that a well designed AI could be more accurate.

There are tools that do this using replacement and/or zero width characters.

https://lingojam.com/UnsearchableText

This happened to me. I honestly thought that it was something I did wrong, until I learned a little more.

It’s a common shape in the universe: large spherical mass in the center, plane of objects rotating around it.

Imagine a new object orbiting Saturn in a random direction. At some point (two, actually), it will cross the plane of the rings. Eventually it will crash into an object. The average of the impact will be closer to the plane. Eventually, it will either align with the plane or its orbit will be unstable.

I think more ironic than bad.

I think this still eliminates class action suits. According to the article quotes, they still define the court and terms under which you can sue.

I just can’t take all this free speech that’s happening right now

What does this mean? Does this mean they’re trying to do something like Yelp and hold those reviews hostage?

True, but most orgs and devs would take the reliable monthly income rather than an unpredictable infusion every two years. If it’s a massive donor base, maybe those things even out. For smaller, active projects, I don’t mind giving a percentage to the bank knowing that they can rely on my donations every month. The larger annual gifts are usually reserved for orgs like clinics, food banks, and community institutions that can handle the fluctuations.

I think there may be a challenge or challenges that you haven’t pinned down yet. First is: what problem does this solve?

Second is, how will people know that they are housed under the same roof, so to speak? A small instance dedicated to NBA basketball may be interesting, but if it seems disconnected then people would be wary. Small specialty instances can be shut down without warning for all sort if reasons.A consortium of instances may help with this issue, as long as it is immediately clear through common branding that they are part if the same group.

Third is that different communities have different needs.

Don’t worry, deceptive sales are still allowed everywhere else…

Not specifically software, but I divide my donations into three categories - for my budget, that’s basically the $10-20 range, the $20-500 range, and $500-2000. I track the donations I make over the year, with a target in mind. For me, the target is 10% of income.

I decide which organizations are doing the most important work, and prioritize those. I try to donate monthly to those that I make use of regularly, then I give the rest as what comes up from day to day.

I consider free software to be a social good, so I don’t separate it from other giving.

As I read it, the article is comparing the two shows exactly to show why they shouldn’t be judged the same. But maybe I just don’t get it.

The data is not centralized in the same way, making it slightly better, but yeah. A lot of the same pitfalls of centralization happen there. The whole system doesn’t operate without the corporate servers in the middle, even though they don’t see or store the data. They have total access to Metadata. The organization could be sold for profit, shut down, change terms, etc.

If security is important, you’re better off with something decentralized like matrix. I’m not an expert, so hopefully, a lot of people here who are smarter than me will fact check these statements, but at least those are my impressions.