No, this all reads as some PR stunt or marketing ploy to me. All news is good kind of thing.

Old Axis cams show up on eBay. Those are pretty standards oriented and easy to work with. Most hanwah and some Samsung are fine too.

Arecont Vision cameras are fun too. Casino mode, anyone?

"This feature ensures continuous full-motion recording at 30 frames per second (fps) to comply with gaming industry regulations. Casino Mode guarantees that the frame rate will not dip below 30 fps by forcing automatic bit rate and exposure control to maintain specific predetermined settings."

[1] https://www.retailitinsights.com/doc/arecont-vision-adds-cas...

I'd say most are hosted first, Milestone, Genetec, Avigilon, etc. They all sell software to host feeds from your own standardized cams (Axis, Hanwah, Samsung, etc) via h.264/mpeg. The cloud hosted CCTV at scale is relatively recent.

https://text.npr.org is another, much appreciated accessible option.

Web based version for those feeling nostalgic

https://lrusso.github.io/3DPinballSpaceCadet/

United has this on some flights. It's no cost but they force you watch ads in the captive portal. I'd rather pay the $8 and be left in peace, every time.

Just an ad one time when you login? That seems fine.

I've never paid for hotel wifi and never will, but I don't mind an ad on the captive portal.

For those interested, there is a lovely IRIX clone WM called MaXX. I've been using it for a couple months and have been quite happy with it on a remote dev machine. I believe it only runs on xorg currently.

1. https://docs.maxxinteractive.com/

This looks neat but the biggest question I have and care about... UBO? Not the limited manifest v3 version or whatever it's referred to as, but the full bore block lists like in FF.

Excited to see where this goes!!

It doesn’t support the APIs ublock requires.

Huh? But I see it says "uBlock Origin" when I install it and the UI looks like what I remember from the full version.

It says "Firefox" when I check the extensions page, so maybe that's where it manages to bring the full version from.

Yes it lets you do it. It doesn’t work.

https://browser.kagi.com/WebExtensions-API-Support.html

The webRequest API is key, dns is used, maybe a few more.

Looks like the macOS support has improved but iOS may never happen.

uBO is supported on Orion MacOS. On iOS it still depends on Apple.

Apple open sourced their WebExtension implementation, they seem open to contributions. I worry Orion doesn’t want to contribute upstream though.

This seems reasonable. The content includes themes (death, rape, violence, etc) that are generally considered NSFW by most modern day rating agencies. Just because cultures have historically seeded the texts for a long period of time doesn't make them SFW. If ESRB/MPAA had to rate a modern reboot, I don't think it would get a T/PG-13.

Personally, I wouldn't want my kids exposed to this kind of material without at least having a chance to talk to them about it first. Would you want your child getting sucked into something like Scientology without your knowledge?

Would you agree the Wikipedia app should be marked NSFW? It also contains a whole lot of objectionable stuff, often with pictures.

It's only reasonable if reason is applied, rather than one particular set of contributors' political sensibilities. Unfortunately, there is zero logical consistency in what is marked NSFW and what isn't. That's the entire problem. F-Droid's authoritarian moral-policing crew are coming up with any flimsy justification for censorship applied inconsistently rather than taking an objective look at the issue. Read the comments and you'll see their tone is clearly dismissive and condescending, not collaborative and "Hmm, I can see how maybe this line of policing is inconsistent." This is how this kind of political-bias-pretending-to-be-objectivity tends to unfold with religious adherents, which these F-Droid contributors seem to be.

"one particular set of contributors' political sensibilities." - the entire western world is now particular sets of political and ideological sensibilities. Why puritan christians always assume that theirs is somehow different of others and won't be subject to new puritanism?

"Read the comments and you'll see their tone is clearly dismissive and condescending" - you think that way because you are biased to classify your religious text as not nsfw - but there is no such reason really - christianity is no longer main ideology of everyone.