It's only a problem if I have my browser set to use dark theme or system theme and my system theme is dark if I switch it to light theme. Everything looks good. So most likely he's using some kind of CSS framework that's automatically responding to the dark theme, but other styles that he's hand coded are not compatible with it
Also, you can spin up an ec2/azure/google vm pretty easy too. I do this frequently and it only costs a few bucks. Often more convenient to have it in the data center anyway.
I was here about a year ago. Getting close to doing 5k 4 times a week, but the last 2k are more walk than run. I'm definitely more interested in getting endurance over speed, but both improve pretty steadily at this point. I guess once I'm doing 5k without walking I'll try to just increase pace. Pretty amazing how much better my quality of life is since exercising seriously for the first time in my late 40s.
I don't read it the way you say. The more restrictive terms are for use of services. If you use firefox, you have to agree not to use the Mozilla services for the prohibited categories, but there are many uses of the browser that are not using Mozilla services.
If you accessed graphic content using the browser, you are not violating the terms unless you put that content up on a mozilla service somewhere. The obvious issue would be some type of bookmark sync. If you bookmarked a graphic url you might violate the terms when it syncs to mozilla, but even then it would be hard to argue that you are granting access to your future self, so unless you used a bookmark sharing service provided by mozilla, I would say its a gray area. So disable bookmark sync. I typically disable all external services in my browser so this would not be relevant.
But my point is that even though you have to agree to the use policy when downloading the browser, it doesn't mean it governs all use of the browser.
The use of the noun copy probably came from the act of copying, but both uses predated the word copyright, so that doesn't really help answer the question.
So I guess the relevant distinction I see is whether the owner of the copyright controls the act of copying a string or controls the string itself in any artifact anywhere. We’re saying that if they meant copy the verb it’s the former and if they meant copy the noun it’s the latter. Is that right?
I see what you mean about it not helping to answer the question in a direct way.
Where I’m coming from is I think that if copy and copy were of a different origin completely, like from French vs Greek or something, and the homophone-ness (homophonity?) was a coincidence, then I could see the authors of the law using the much less common industry term without considering whether people would get confused.
But if one refers to the other, it seems implausibly confusing for them to use the way less common meaning and not expect anyone to get confused in a way that would change the meaning of the law. Or was the copyright law written by the characters of mad men??? Seems more like an overreach by certain media publishers.
Forgery would require trying to pass off the copy as an original. As long as it is not pretending to be something it isn't, it is just a replica, not a forgery.