Backing something that separates families is divisive and not appropriate for an organization that is about openness and diversity, especially given the current tech climate of monoculture.
Engineers can really be the worst offenders when it comes to hate-like views, I think in part because they're likely smarter than the average person so they've completely convinced themselves that they're the rational ones.
I remember back when I was at Google in 2008. A survey on lgbt issues went around company wide. What came back was so completely shocking and insane, especially out of Russia and India. Burn them, kill them, they don't desire to live, etc. And this was a survey you gave back to your employer!!!
Edit: as many people have missed my point let me clarify. The comparison against the KKK was simply to illustrate that who you donate to and support affects your organization, especially when that cause negatively impacts the personal lives of your employees (and goes against your org core values, and reinforces an existing problem of monoculture). I'm not saying prop 8 == KKK, I'm showing that personal beliefs matter when you're a leader.
Specifically, it's entirely possible to oppose gay marriage on a number of grounds without being homophobic or bigoted; in my experience even as a young gay man in San Francisco, most of the people in my life who don't support gay marriage are perfectly reasonable, kind individuals who don't hate their gay friends. It's rather shallow to consider one's stance on LGBT issues through a single, limited lens, given that there are dozens of other issues (HIV, youth homelessness, alcoholism, depression) that affect the LGBT community.
(I'm sure we've had this conversation 100+ years ago on slavery. That didn't die in a single day, either.)
It is the very definition of being bigoted.
They're not perfectly reasonable, and they are not kind. They just like to think they are through a lenses that hides away some parts of the population.
Edit: spelling
How so?
I mean, I really haven't heard any arguments against same sex marriage that were not homophobic, so I'm actually curious since the definition of homophobia in Merriam-Webster [1] is:
"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"
I would thought that opposing to gay marriage would amount to discrimination against homosexuals, no?
Edit: Can't reply to mrbabbage due to anti-flame filter or something, but I guess, if I understand correctly, the contention point is about how people define marriage. So if marriage is, in some people's view, something entirely religious-related, then for them it would not be considered opposing gay marriage as something related to discrimination, but related to not "breaking" said definition.
For others, marriage would be just a religious-independent term, that signifies a certain set of life decisions (living with your partner, etc) as well as certain legal responsibilities and rights.
Ok, I get your point now. And I was honestly not wanting to start a flame war, and was genuinely asking since I wasn't clear on this. I guess the debate then turns into whether as a community (for different values of community) we should consider marriage as a legal term devoid of any religious implication, or not.
Edit2: I'm not even sure if people would even be able to agree on this, at least not for several generations.
Edit3: Wow, not sure why I would get downvoted for asking an honest question. I am seeing the vote counter jump up and down. Very interesting.
I'm also a gay man in SF and I don't share your view point at all. Telling me I can't get married, have kids (intertwined issue), and live a normal life means you've denied me happiness and freedom of expression. There's nothing perfectly reasonable about that.
Other issues that affect lgbt community aren't on topic -- eich donated to prop 8.
"Divisive" is an interesting word, and one very, very useful if you're on the popular side of a monoculture. Anyone asking to be in your industry who you don't like is being divisive.
The average Californian voted for the proposition Eich donated to. Is it rational to compare the majority of Californian voters to the KKK? Is it rational to call the positions of both Obama and Clinton in 2008 hateful?
Nonetheless, eliminating the wallet of someone paying to split you from your lover seems like self-defense rather than an attack. Their reaction was justified to say the least. The real evil here is the consistent trend of one group of people trying to limit another they disagree with. Let them be them, us be us, whatever so long as no provable harm is happening. That's my baseline for civil liberties.
I just read a quote the other day. Roe vs. Wade passed while Nixon was president, but he didn't really get involved publicly. Some private tapes were made though, in one of them he said that abortion was "necessary" in some circumstances. Such as mixed race pregnancies!
and then a little later
> ... especially out of Russia and India....
So the monoculture is of a diverse "national" cultures but it needs to be replaced with a US centric progressive view monoculture?
You have to explain your reasoning here.
And I don't understand how the opposition to gay marriage is about separating families and is the equivalent of raging racists that lynch innocent people of colour. Can you explain that also?
This isn't exactly a new idea about open societies. See for example Karl Popper in 1945:
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
But it is much more colloquially known as "live and let live."
>And I don't understand how the opposition to gay marriage is about separating families and is the equivalent of raging racists that lynch innocent people of colour. Can you explain that also?
Also, somewhat tired ground by now, but the California proposition would separated families and deprived them of the legal rights that families have. Your "lynch" analogy is a strawman, the KKK doesn't really do that these days, but it still does vile things. The KKK of today is quite equivalent in effect and practice to California's prop 8.
"I fundamentally disagree with you about this very important issue, and we should still find a way to cooperate" is a crucial idea, hard won and, as we are seeing, easily lost. It underpins multi-religious societies, working democracies, and in general, any group of people that need to do something. Unfortunately, right now we have groups of people that say the polar oposite: "It is good and moral to shun people who disagree with X".
I totally agree with marriage equality. But I think it can be (and mostly was) won on dialogue, not shunning. And I will always be against the shunners (though I hope not to shun them :P).
As long as they operate within the law then that's not something someone should be fired for. Otherwise, would you fire someone for donating to e.g. the Republican party? If you can't express a legal political position without being fired then you don't have free speech[1] in any meaningful sense.
[1] Which does not just mean the first amendment, I don't understand the confusion that leads people to think this.
Aaaand, resigning of your own free will because your employees don't agree with your politics (and may no longer want to follow your leadership) seems like a consequence you should be ready to accept when you engage politically.
What a stupid survey. I would refuse to answer any question if one of hundreds would be about political views. It's not employers matter what I think.
If you mentioned that "boycott Mozilla" thing started by OkCupid, let's don't forget that okcupid CEO did the same as Eich. http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/04/08/okcupid-ceo-once...
But this is almost certainly not a useful subject to rehash when there are no doubt other interesting things to discuss about Mozilla.
Many same-sex partners have been barred from hospital rooms, cut off from estates (in the event of their partner's deaths), and limited from access to their children after breakups. These all rely on the legal framework of marriage to navigate, and this was something that was not available to most of the gay population of the US until last year.
If you cannot respect folks professionally, you need to go. If your religious beliefs call for my <insert attribute here> to be condemned/killed/declared heretic/etc, good for you. But we're not taking the issue up at work.
I think I mostly agree with you on the particulars, but asking religious people to stay in the closet isn't healthy either. Maybe certain discussions need to happen outside of the normal workday, but you wouldn't support a policy that required someone to leave their race, gender, or sexual orientation at home, would you?
You would have got the same kind of responses in America if you asked about how blacks should be treated/integrated into the company back in the 1950s.
Regardless, this was 2008, not 1950s. It also wasn't only Russia and India. Americans, Europeans, and others also came back with extremely intolerant views as well TO THEIR EMPLOYER AND COLLEAGUES!!
Every single person in the world knows that one hundred percent of all the people from the UK know damn well to stay away from generalizations. Oh wait.
Not a great comparison. I don't think the campaign, that Eich donated to, killed people.
Regardless, the comparison was not meant to be quite so 1:1. It was to illustrate with a "clearer case" that CEOs that support divisive organizations affect the organization that they lead.
How about end-users that hold the same divisive values as Mr. Eich? Surely Mozilla shouldn't tolerate these either.
I recommend a first-run wizard that quizzes the user's political stance. If the user is on the wrong side of history, Firefox will automatically uninstall itself. Nothing is more important than the projects moral purity, right?
Whatever your position is on gay marriage, right out of the gate Eich got overwhelmed. He was the one in the position to do something about the shitstorm, and yet it grew rather than diminished.
If you're going to get paid as much as a CEO does, you should be able to finesse difficult PR situations; he clearly couldn't, so it's reasonable that he got axed. The actual topic of the shitstorm doesn't even need to enter into it.
It's ridiculous to me that a group that is supposed to be against oppression, bigotry, and bullying, practices exactly this when it involves people with differing beliefs.
It only makes people like Trump even more popular.
I published three Chrome extensions last year, and decided to port my more ambitious one to Firefox. (all at http://www.metafruit.com) Now I feel somewhat bad for complaining since I'm not an extension reviewer myself, and I feel they've taken on a tall order for the betterment of their community. But my Firefox port took four months to get to the front of the review process. Needless to say, my next extension is targeted only for Chrome.
Chrome's approach is easy for developers but almost reckless for end users.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/03/04/breakthroughs-in-...
Another aside: At least for extensions featured in a store, it makes sense to me to have a vetting process. Also, I believe that anyone should be able to read, unminified, the code they run on their computers if they so wish. (Especially if the software gets to view/change the content of the pages they visit.) So, I appreciate the general rule in Moz's review process against minified code and large unknown libraries.
It probably won't affect the review process, but it will at least make targeting both browsers from a dev perspective potentially (hopefully!) trivial.
Right about here my confidence in the veracity of this guy's claims plummeted. Brave offers nothing existing browsers can't already provide, except of course a diversion of ad revenue directly into Eich's pocket.
Brave has not even started ad replacement, we will bring up micropayments first. When the ad revenue flows, with NI-ZKP based anonymous confirmation of ad impressions, we will share 55% directly with publishers according to user traffic and impressions. We give 15% to users, which by default will auto micropay for their top sites to be ad-free. We take the same share, 15%. Our partner in privacy-preserving ad matching, Sonobi, makes 15%.
To say that our aggregate 70% revenue share to websites goes "directly into Eich's pocket" is either to say something you guessed wrong about, in which case read our site docs and watch our GitHub; or it is a lie.
Ads may decline in favor of paywalls but I doubt they will go away. And we are building, and bootstrap-funding via the 15% revshare, user wallets into Brave, with anonymity. If paying for web content does take off at the expense of ads, Brave is in pole position with our micropayments system to lead and win this race.
I'd suggest looking at a payment aggregating rather than disaggregating system. It's the direction publishing's been headed for about 400 years.
Of course, you might just be the exception as proves the rule. But I doubt it.
For those unfamiliar with Brave, I can recommend this interview:
https://opensource.com/business/16/2/brave-browser-interview
And in there lies some of the problems, a Mozilla exec creates a new project that overlaps with Mozilla's star product. Whether Brave is good or bad is irrelevant.
Brave uses almost same sentences as i2 project used in it's press-releases and was released in few weeks after i2 one.
I also do not see any sentences in common. Brave aims to pay publishers better than the ads we replace would have paid them. No sign of that from what I read just now at i2.si. Did I miss it?
Same way as IE stolen Netscape Navigator, FF stolen IE, CH stolen FF? You can't steal idea. "Payment integrated in webbrowser" is not patentable (or I hope it's not).
And Brave makes me sad. No disrespect to Brendan and his team! Kudos to them for building an opinionated product that excites people. But many of Brave's praised features are things Mozilla considered but dropped due to fear of publisher retaliation or lack of focus. Things like:
* Tracking protection in non-private browsing mode
* Blocking third-party cookies from unvisited domains
* HTTPS Everywhere integration
* Partitioned user sessions
* Promoting alternatives to toxic web advertising
* Some sort of micropayment system
* One-click Tor or secure VPN browsing
The real problem for me is why Firefox OS was not stopped 2 years ago when trends became clear. That is inexcusable given the amount of efforts Mozilla continued to spend on it.
And Brave makes me sad, too, for lots of reasons.
Disclaimer: Former Mozilla employee, but love the people still.
I'm interested. Here, email, DM on Twitter, whatever you prefer.
Update: I took Chris to be saying Brave makes him sad about Mozilla fearing backlash and lacking focus. Maybe I misread, but the way we propose to pay publishers with Brave could one day become a web standard. No fear. And focus matters, obviously at a startup but definitely at a bigger outfit facing giant sized competition.
Mentioned in the Slashdot comment and would be a simple thing to add. Agree with some of the others though.
This is just anecdotal of course, so take it with a grain of salt.
To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I
switched from Chrome to Firefox, and have felt that that
Firefox has some serious performance advantages over Chrome.
also, iirc, Firefox did alright in benchmarks at many points in history.
Killed Firefox and the system responsiveness was considerably better. Its amazing that the memory bloat in FF has been allowed to go on for so long. But hey, IoT!
Literally everything else about Chrome is better. Oh yeah and it actually syncs all my settings correctly unlike on Firefox where some changes never seem to sync for some reason.
For example: finding and deleting tracking cookies is still laborious in Firefox. You have to select domains one by one, hitting "Remove selected" each time. Why can't you select multiple domains at once and nuke them? Why can't it tell you which tab is using up CPU resources, so you can close it? And in "private browsing" mode: why are cookies still carried over? That's not so "private", is it??
The whole FirefoxOS thing sounded just like a solution looking for a problem. I have been in situations (Govt grants) where the grantees have too much money and will just throw it at random proposals which have no hope of working. This sounded just like that.
Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)? There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$. Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects.
Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways. Why should the execs get paid so much?
Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)?
There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$.
Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects.
Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways
disclaimer: I work for Mozilla.
AFAIK, 99% projects out there are Mozilla specific and I don't know anyone is using them seriously.
They do:
"Mozilla Open Source Support (MOSS) is an awards program specifically focused on supporting the Open Source and Free Software movement, with an initial allocation of USD $1 million."
I think there's also a bit of confusion about what Mozilla do. The Mozilla corporation make firefox. The Mozilla Foundation that owns the corporation steward the open web, and help make open (source/access/data) the default mode of working for organisations that affect access to knowledge and technology. They are not about serving programmers with cool technology. They are absolutely about making people feel welcome and engaged in building the web.
source: am a Mozilla science fellow
Anyway, I have really enjoyed Vivaldi's user-first view, like Opera before it also got too much of a Chrome envy. There are browser settings galore and a generally customization-positive view by the developers and you can feel how it oozes "classic Opera" mentality.
Also, they do none of those Firefox shenanigans as of late with bundld third party software or ads. They are simply focusing on becoming the best choice for a power user.
It's other disadvantage is that it's proprietary software. Rather than disagreeing with this from a security point of view (which is valid), I'm going to say that I don't like using software that I can't look at if I get curious as to how it works.
I've looked at the code for Firefox to see how certain things were done that fascinated me. I can't do that with Vivaldi.
Chrome extensions seems (with a few exceptions) to be just locally stored web sites.
A better alternative to Firefox might be Palemoon which is just an older version of Firefox with security patches. I am not in a position to judge if it is safe enough for anyone to use but I like it.
Beyond that, unless something has changed, Palemoon doesn't have anything that resembles a security program, other than taking up security bugs from Mozilla that are likely increasingly less relevant as the code bases diverge.
https://github.com/segmentio/analytics.js/issues/501
I'm the reporter there. Same user on Firefox (natch) doesn't cause the same errors. I also don't see those errors from any other browser. It's always Maxthon.
This is always, always so fascinating to me, to see how many people will never ever consider this, at least in public.
There's this most basic of basic incentives, money, a huge pile of money sitting around, and everybody piously pretends it doesn't matter to everybody who's in control of it.
So fascinating.
Do engineers in the US have a professional association or union?
Their success can therefore be determined by how well they fight against things like:
* monoculture of browser's/engine's (Internet Explorer, Webkit)
* The use of vendor specific standards on web (ActiveX, NaCl, Flash Player)
* The introduction and proliferation of non-open standards on the web. (H.264, HVEC, Widevine, Primetime, FairPlay, PlayReady)
* The centralization of content and services onto a few dominant websites (Google, Facebook, YouTube)
* breaking add-ons due to rapid updates [Everybody Hates Firefox Updates (evilbrainjono.net) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384]
* switching to Australis [Australis is landing in Firefox Nightly (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650]
* removing options to customize the browser ["Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23 (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237]
* getting rid of the Status bar and breaking add-ons that depend on it [Removing Firefox’s Status Bar and Rehousing Add-on Icons http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status... http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status... https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-ba...]
* long review queues for add-on approval [Writing Extensions for Firefox Is Barely Worth the Trouble (omniref.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744]
* displaying ads in the browser [Firefox will show ads on the new tab page based on browsing history (geeksnack.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362]
* banning unsigned add-ons and annoucing a new add-on development API that breaks existing add-ons [Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999]
* forcing Pocket and Hello icons to appear on the toolbar with every update [Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809]
* denying vehemently for months that there is no financial arrangement with Pocket [Mozilla to stop Sponsored Tiles in Firefox (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519] and then casually admitting it in a Wired interview on other topics [http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-we...]
* spinning off Thunderbird as a "community project" [Mozilla Wants To Split Off Its Thunderbird Email/Chat Client (techcrunch.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861]
* neglecting browser performance, multi-process architecture and browser security. This year, the Pwn2Own contest refused to consider Firefox security hacks because the organizers "wanted to focus on the browsers that have made serious security improvements in the last year." http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wo...
All these changes were dropped on the community without any prior warning, discussion or input. Firefox add-on developers responded to many of these changes by developing workarounds like Pale Moon, Classic Theme Restorer, The Addon Bar (Restored), etc. but by now many of them have burnt out. The burden of fixing Mozilla's mistakes is just too heavy. [The likely end of DownThemAll (downthemall.net) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240]
Many of these decisions came out of "Google envy":
* the drive to mimic Chrome instead of doubling down on what makes Firefox unique
* the transformation in compny culture from a scrappy open source project to a bloated corporate hierarchy that enforces a fear-based workplace
* empire building via a massive hiring spree (or, as Steve Jobs so memorably put it, a "bozo explosion")
* the adoption of whiteboard-style interviews to hire employees off the street instead of considering long-time community members
* the leasing of expensive offices in hipster locations like San Francisco instead of encouraging remote work which is ingrained in the company culture
* chasing the latest buzzwords like mobile operating systems and IoT projects and spinning off core products like Thunderbird and Firefox OS as "community projects". (What's next? Autonomous cars?)
Firefox markets share is already 8% and falling. Once Yahoo vaporizes, it will take Mozilla down with it. I'm looking forward to once again seeing a lean organization with a laser focus on making the best browser, period.
My favorite link on this:
https://np.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/3vijxi/psa_mozilla_...
http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-browser-ww-monthly-200807-201...
""" ...
On top of that, do you guys honestly think that Firefox would not have slid down the same slope, given that it suddenly had Google, Apple, and Microsoft to compete with, some of whom effectively prevent Firefox from even running on their mobile platforms? It's like I'm living in a bizarro world sometimes when I consider that Slashdot fancies itself as informed tech geeks/nerds, and they don't seem to have any idea what they're ranting about anymore. """
""" Sigh. Does anyone on Slashdot even know what Mozilla is doing anymore, or do they just actively seek anything minor they can to twist into pathetic negative rants? They've clearly already shifted their focus back onto Firefox lately, but apparently you haven't noticed. Apparently all you've seen is "hype", while selectively ignoring everything else. """
for there being "no incentive", Mozilla dev seems extremely focused on fixing these problems
Mozilla is still doing a lot of awesome stuff (web assembly, rust, servo, etc...), and I personally still choose Firefox over Chromium. As a user, I do have complaints about the direction on a number of things though.
One of the simpler things I'm surprised I haven't seen yet is a decent native text editor, considering how much relies on editing text in a browser.
Firefox also had a bigger market share than Microsoft.
A mutual company is probably the closest thing you'll find to that (basically a company where you become a shareholder when you become a customer). I'm not sure how well that structure would work for a company like Mozilla, which has a weak relationship to its "customers," but I think it's work a short for large utility-like organizations like telcom companies.
Many non-profits have elections for board positions where members of the organization or its community can help determine board membership and vote out bad directors. Mozilla Foundation's by-laws (http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf) states "This Foundation shall have no members" (Article II).
Existing directors are the only ones who can vote in board elections. They are only accountable to themselves.
Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Foundation, meaning all voting shares are controlled by the Foundation's board.
I find this to generally be a dangerous structure for a non-profit to have. Think twice about donating to any charity where the directors are well compensated and accountable to no one.
If the board is stubborn there is nothing anyone can do to force them out. Hopefully with pressure the community can achieve some reforms. One I would push for immediately is adopting new by-laws that allow community involvement in board elections.
The problem with technology non-profits is that the world around them changes pretty rapidly, and with substantial discontinuities.
So if you're an employee and you've signed on to an org with an understanding of why your job and your project matters for The Mission, of course change can appear scary and confusing.
On the other hand, especially when there is rapid turn over, or the ground keeps shifting under the org, there's a strong incentive by execs to try and find new territory one can set up upon.
The tensions seem pretty obvious. This is the same issue that's come up with Wikipedia's search project too.
Nobody works for Mozilla Foundation. The employees work for Mozilla Corporation, a taxable / for profit entity entirely owned by Mozilla Foundation. They have precisely one revenue stream worth mentioning: search bar contracts. Those contracts are bid on by for profit companies, who will be bidding based on perceived value per search, searches per user, and total users.
The introduction of Chrome should concern Mozilla Corp employees, and the ceding of market share to it should be terrifying. Your capacity for The Mission is diminished if user base declines, because bids will decline.
For the record, I hate the latest UI changes to Firefox, I have chromium installed also and use it when needed. I don't need two of them. The big round tabs, the Fischer-price menus, the prefs with hardcoded white backgrounds, etc. If they hadn't fixed the memory leaks recently I'd go back to FF 20 or so.
Google Chrome has really done a number on the browser market and surpassed the 25% mark for quite some time while Firefox has been dwindling to irrelevance. Failed to even eat into IE marketshare.
https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...
* It was for a senior security engineer, not a junior dev
* I looked at 63 candidates (as in applicants / resumes)
* IIRC I screen interviewed around 10
* IIRC we advanced around 4 to the full interview process
I deleted my comments for 3 reasons:
* Someone else took the initiative to link my comments to the Mozilla Vancouver office, and implied that we tried to fill that position locally
* Despite identifying in my initial comment that it was an exceptional circumstance people were acting like it was the norm
* In my initial comment I said interviewing 63 candidates, not reviewing 63 candidates; after the thread blew up I revised it to reviewed, but it's the internet :/
Mea culpa, but hiring qualified security people is really hard these days, and has been for years.
One other very important note - when we were filling that role the guidance was the the position should be filled in one of our offices, not remotely. Once that restriction was removed, the position was filled almost immediately.
tl;dr: Mozilla is clearly failing as an organization, its programmers are underpaid, and its flagship product continues to shake down its users for donations, meanwhile its executives still get paid upwards of $800k a year for their mismanagement.
Something simple (like markdown) that can be implemented in a wide range of languages (not only system languages).
The complex web we have today is a dead end. It monopolizes too much ressources in few complex projects.
We need a lot of different projects trying to achieve different goals. Some can be specialized (like only for a site or a task). Some can be whole-purpose.
3 or 4 layout engine is not enough.
Seeing what they have done in the last few years, makes this post look less like a fake.
What for idiots.