Here's the statement we're sharing with the press:
In alignment with our commitment to an open and accessible internet, Mozilla will reinstate previously restricted listings in Russia. Our initial decision to temporarily restrict these listings was made while we considered the regulatory environment in Russia and the potential risk to our community and staff.
As outlined in our Manifesto, Mozilla's core principles emphasize the importance of an internet that is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. Users should be free to customize and enhance their online experience through add-ons without undue restrictions.
By reinstating these add-ons, we reaffirm our dedication to:
Openness: Promoting a free and open internet where users can shape their online experience.
Accessibility: Ensuring that the internet remains a public resource accessible to everyone, regardless of geographical location.
We remain committed to supporting our users in Russia and worldwide and will continue to advocate for an open and accessible internet for all.
Open Sourcing something is never a easy task especially if it calls for a complete rewrite which i assume is why it still has not been open sourced yet
Buying a technology company, they buy a proven idea. If the bought tech has a diffrent stack than everything else Mozilla already had then rewriting it is going to be a good long term idea.
There’s easy solutions to that if it ever becomes a problem (the easiest is a vacancy tax) but it’s not currently a problem in the US as can be seen from the fact that places which have built more housing in the past decade or so have much lower rents than similar places that haven’t built as much housing.
Arguably it is already a problem. NYC's "Billionaire's Row" is crammed full of apartments built for the sole purpose of investment and remain vacant. Imagine how many homes for "regular" people (yes, it's Manhattan, they'll still be expensive) could have been built there if there wasn't a financial incentive to bury money like this.
These skyscrapers buy "air rights" from neighbours to build high which takes away even more homes.
NYC's primary problem is having the worst housing production rates of any major US city (aside from a handful that are economically struggling and have low production from outright lack of demand), and the downstate/LI suburbs being exceptionally bad as well.
The rest is basically irrelevant. Every one of those few "billionaire" buildings could be 1-bedroom market rate units at 100% occupancy instead and it wouldn't do anything significant for the overall problem.
For one example of how broken NYC policies are: 60% of residential lots aren't zoned for anything over 2 stories. The city needs to have much of it moderately upzoned to get decent (and decently distributed) housing development, not to somehow start building affordable skyscrapers in Midtown.
Places like NYC and London fit a kind of niche where there is a market for this sort of opulence/money-laundering. But if you, like, sit on a bunch of commercial real estate in Des Moines Iowa, turning it around into a $50 million apartment for the Saudis is not a real possibility.
That would actually require demolishing them and building residential buildings from scratch. Most office spaces are not designed to be inhabitable 24/7, they would suck as apartments.
This is the dumbest take i have ever seen, is apple paid opposition? mozilla are paid to have google as the default search engine just the same way google pays apple billions for the right to be the default search in ios
