Unfortunately, GTK 4 has removed key themes. Eventually, Firefox, Chrom(e|ium) and all actual GTK applications will migrate to GTK 4, so this is not very future-proof.
I use a variant of the emacs key theme, so I'd be happy if there were a workaround...
Video conferences are as if everybody were potentially constantly staring at you, but you couldn't tell if or when this was the case, and despite everybody looking at you, you couldn't even make eye-contact with anybody, share a smile etc.
I'm not disagreeing that (in these scenarios) EB would probably become paid-for, while Chrome never would. I'm just arguing that Chrome would become even more privacy- and user-unfriendly, which is the approximate equivalent of EB putting up paywalls. (Is paying with your attention and privacy better or worse than paying directly with money?)
Apple would continue offering a relatively privacy-friendly alternative — but would require you to switch OS to use it; Microsoft might fork Chromium, but I fear that they'd only pay lip-service to privacy.
Obviously these analyses are complicated by the fact that in both cases the forces that helped create Wikipedia/Firefox wouldn't disappear. If Wikimedia died, then people would put up their Wikipedia dumps online in their own MediaWiki instances. If Mozilla died, then people would either try to keep Firefox alive or try to maintain a set of privacy patches on Chromium. How successful they'd be is another matter...
Doesn't the same also partially hold for Firefox and Chrome, though?
They wouldn't start charging for Chrome, as that's not their business model, but they might move part of their development out of (open source) Chromium and into (closed source) Chrome or further curtail extensions (e.g. adblockers) etc.
Encyclopedia Britannica[0] isn't free ("libre"), but it is now free (gratis). Arguably, being libre isn't quite as indispensable in the case of cultural/educational works as it is for software.
I'm not OP, (and people at Mozilla have probably already considered this), but why doesn't Mozilla try a far more aggressive Wikipedia-like donation campaign?
Admittedly:
1. Wikipedia has more "users" than Firefox.
2. Despite this, the donations Wikimedia receives are only about a fifth of Mozilla's budget.
However, people use their browser far more than they use any single website and hence might be more willing to donate more to Mozilla. (For example, I love Wikipedia, but I've gotten even more value from Firefox.)
Overall, this would be unlikely to cover all of Mozilla's expenses, but I'd also be surprised if donations (after such a campaign) would be less than 10% of current revenue; in any case it'd be a valuable source of diversification.
It's possible that the legal relation between the Foundation and the Corporation doesn't make this possible.
I'm probably not the intended "you", but one idea would be a "testimonials"/thanks section in GitHub/GitLab/Gitea, in addition to the standard Issues and Pull/Merge requests.
It'd allow users of the tool/library to express gratitude, give the developer feedback about their creation and possibly even provide inspiration to other users. People could set their own notification preferences, and the UI could make it clear to those thanking that they shouldn't necessarily expect a reply.
The "testimonials/thanks template" could include a suggestion to donate if you've made a commercial product using the software or if you're just a happy end-user.
GitHub is trying out "discussions", but that's far less targeted.
From a personal point of view, I just try to express thanks whenever I otherwise have a substantive point to make (bug report, comment on an issue, but as you point out that doesn't allow for situations where you don't have anything else to say.
Unfortunately, that's not what OP wants. What OP wants is that when they scroll, the position of the cursor remains at the same position in the buffer (the contents), even when that means that it leaves the currently visible screen.
What scroll-preserve-screen-position determines, is whether the point/cursor stays at the same visual position in the screen — i.e. if for instance your cursor was in the middle of the screen, it will stay in the middle when you scroll.
OP needs the currently non-existent scroll-preserve-buffer-position.
To add to this, there's a set of Winetricks recipes for running SM on Linux.[0] (Disclaimer: I haven't tried them, though I've been planning to, for a while.)
XMonad's[0] default behaviour of being able to separately tell a program to go "fullscreen" (i.e. hide most UI) and control what portion of the screen its window takes up is extremely valuable, since many programs don't give you the option of separately hiding their UI, and it's only possible by making them go fullscreen. However, being able to hide the UI is actually most valuable when there is more than one window on the screen... This is especially important when you have a small (or average-sized) screen, but it's also useful on larger ones to avoid distractions.
Getting the "normal" fullscreen is just two keyboard shortcuts away ("fullscreen" the program and assign its window the entire screen), rather than one. From an intuitiveness point of view, being able to hide a program's UI and change its window size separately is arguably more intuitive — according to the separation of concerns, the former is managed by the program itself and the latter by the WM.
PiP is really nice, but videos aren't the content for which getting a distraction-free experience is most important...
[0] I'm sure that it's also possible with other tiling WMs such as ratpoison, stumpwm, awesome etc.
> NflxMultiSubs is still working. I wrote a patch to fix it, and took over maintence on Chrome.
That's great! It's a shame that it's (apparently) no longer open source, though obviously given the MIT license you're allowed to stop disclosing the source.
I second the mpv-based solution, as suggested by st1ck. If you prefer vlc, it now (as of the beta 4.0.0)[0] also supports dual/secondary subtitles. Making it work seems a bit fiddly: first you need to turn them on (under Tools > Preferences > Subtitles/OSD > Dual Subtitles (at the very bottom) > Align — change to anything but unset, and possibly also adjust offset). Then, when playing a video, to select them for that video, you need to "Toggle secondary subtitle control" with Ctrl+Shift+V (this means that the normal subtitle control shortcuts like "v", "Alt+v" etc. now apply to the secondary subtitles) and press "v" the right number of times to switch to the subtitles that you want.
(Obviously vlc and mpv will only work for DRM-free videos, e.g. from youtube or a DVD.)
If you were asking specifically about Netflix subtitles, there used to be an open source NflxMultiSubs extension[1] for both Firefox and Chromium, but it was broken by Netflix introducing changes to its video player and discontinued. There is an active, open-source dual-captions[2] extension, but it's for Chrome only. (However, since it's open source adapting it it for Firefox should be straightforward.) Finally, as an alternative approach, you could try a Firefox addon which allows loading arbitrary subtitles in the SRT format to netflix,[3] and which might perhaps allow you to have both netflix's subtitles and your own SRT ones at the same time.
Weirdly, it seems[0][1][2], that the layout doesn't do particularly well by Carpalx's keyboard effort estimator[3], as it gets a total effort score of 2.260, compared to 3, 2.098 and 1.842 for Qwerty, Dvorak and Colemak, respectively[4] (lower is better). In contrast, the halmak repo claims[5] an efficiency gain of +134% over Qwerty for halmak, compared to +77% for Dvorak and +84% for Colemak. Since (one would assume) efficiency and effort should be approximately inversely correlated, these results don't square.
I have no idea whether Carpalx's or Halmak's keyboard layout (efficiency|effort) evaluator is more accurate (indicative of real (efficiency|effort)), but the huge disparity between the two is troubling.
(Obviously, Carpalx and Halmak use different optimisation methods — Monte Carlo simulated annealing versus an "evolution algorithm based AI" — and these could well give different results, even with the same scoring method, due to getting stuck in different local maxima etc., but the issue is that the scoring methods themselves give different rankings of fixed keyboard layouts.)
Edit: quickly reading through all of the halmak author's blog posts, it seems that they're aware of the Carpalx project. They describe their (current?) effort model here[6]. It seems heavily data-based, but it's still difficult to determine whether it's "better" than Carpalx's.
They dropped their implementation of MathML in 2013. In the six years since then, they didn't fix it or replace it with a better one.
I'm extremely excited by Igalia's work on MathML and glad that the Google Chrome team had given it their preliminary approval, but in the context of criticising Google for working on the "application web" and ignoring the "document web" (for scientists and others), it doesn't change anything[0]. Google is neither doing the work, nor funding it[1], and their contribution until now has mostly (solely?) been to be open about merging it.
[0] not that you explicitly said that it did...
[1] It's funded by the NISO and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
> Does anybody know where I can/should host a copy?
With torrent or IPFS, perhaps? (Given the CC BY-SA license, this would be completely legal.)
Also, GitHub's behaviour wrt to LFS is really disappointing — the epub file could have been stored normally with git (its size of ~ 3 MB is far less than the hard limit of 100 MB), in which case there would have been no issues of exceeding a data quota...
For comparison, the linked PDF is normally indexed with git, despite weighing at 7.7 MB.
Since LFS is supposed to reduce total bandwidth use for the hoster, GitHub is, in effect, punishing people for reducing GitHub's bandwidth usage...
Actually, the linked PDF is originally[0] by the same author as the EPUB version you linked. However, in the original repository[0] the PDF is managed with LFS, so it's inaccessible...
If, in about:config, you set ui.key.accelKey to 91, then Super-W will close a single tab (and Super-T will open a single tab etc.). This obviously won't work in Chromium, though.
Celestia[0][1] can just about do it. In principle, it can show you what you'd see from any point in space. In practice, it's limited by the data it has (for stars, it uses the Hipparcos Catalogue, which only contains ~ 100,000 stars of the ~ 250 billion that are in the Milky Way) and displays the Milky Way, outside our "immediate" neighbourhood (i.e. several hundred light years), as just a set of amorphous blobs. Hence you can visualise the Milky Way as seen from the edge of the galaxy, but it'll be rather blurry. (It also obviously doesn't include the newly discovered warped shape.)
Edit: For this purpose, I think that this "Chrome Experiment"[2], might be better.
Also see "Gaia Sky"[3] which I haven't tried, but which looks really interesting and may well do what you want.
Depending on what you mean by "in some future update" and "pretty much guaranteed" (given an infinite timespan everything will disappear) I don't think that's true. I've kept my Firefox user.js (my manual about:config changes) under git over the past 3 years[0], and of the 44 options that I customised, 36 are still present and (seem[1] to be) active.
6 of the about:config user_prefs customised add-ons, so they no longer work due to the shift to Webextensions (but I can still make 5 of the customisations via another interface).
1 customised the GCLI, which was removed, and 1 customised Panorama, which was also removed. (However, most of what GCLI did, can be done some other way, and there are a couple of Webextensions faithfully emulating Panorama.)
[0] The file is older, but I added it to git only three years ago. Hence, many of the about:config changes have been "alive" for longer, but I have no record of those that were removed earlier than 3 years ago.
[1] Cursorily glancing through my comments above each entry to make sure that it still does what it was supposed to.