Original source: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/ghost-machine-rogue-communication-devices-found-chinese-inverters-2025-05-14/

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?

Ah right, that makes sense, thanks! (Thanks to the other repliers as well.)

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

And soon: https://thundermail.com/

Do you know what makes people say he will probably be voted in in a later round? We don’t really know anything about why coalition party members voted against, right? Is it just that a reasonable explanation is that people wanted to keep him on his toes, but that’s that?

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

They can overlap, yes. Static sites are definitely not automatically better for accessibility.

This feels like people actually went through extra effort to translate it and translate it back again 🤦

Note there’s a group of users that larger than the group of users without JS (for whatever reason): users of assistive technology. And they don’t even have a choice.

While I’m all for considering the needs of every user… If you get to the point where you’re worrying about no-JS users, I hope you’ve already considered the needs of people with disabilities, whether temporary or permanent.

Edit: oh right, wanted to add: just making a site work without JS doesn’t automatically make it accessible to people with special needs.

That’s the kind of thing that sounds nice, but in practice I don’t think that’s what evidence points towards.

Pressures like these have historically sometimes led to countries becoming more democratic, so hopefully it’ll lead to the UK applying some reforms allowing for a more proportional system. Labour probably has the numbers for it. But just at least as likely nothing will change.

That is true, but all that wouldn’t be able to survive if Mozilla were to significantly scale back development.

I’m not sure which button you’re talking about, but if it’s the one in the sidebar, click “Customise sidebar”, and then uncheck “AI chatbot”.

By now you would’ve expected someone to have pointed out what code is actually collecting that data that’s supposedly sold.

I don’t see how being a non-profit suddenly makes it cheaper to build a secure, modern and compatible browser. (Although I know lots of people underestimate how much effort that takes. But just consider that already Mozilla’s doing it for far less money than Google invests in Chrome, for example.)