ToxicWaste

This is not correct.

Most of the posts/articles reference following reddit post: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/k9w3ei4/ . It shows the code from your screenshot. However the code does not check the user agent and is not injected server side (I checked by user agent spoofing and using a freshly installed chrome). So it will run on every browser and cannot be used against some specific ones.

There is an answer to the post everyone seems to reference, which goes a bit deeper into what the code could do: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/

Guys relax. Most of the 'research' comes from this reddit post: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/k9w3ei4/

It points out following code in youtube's polymer script:

setTimeout(function() {
    c();
    a.resolve(1)
 }, 5E3);

But exactly this code does show up on a stock installation of chrome too, and it does not check for the user agent. One of the responses goes a bit deeper into what the code above could do: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/

It is rather clear, that this code is not aimed at firefox users to slow down their loading time.

I would say the channel has at least cult vibes. "Truth about Wormholes", "meets the Creator", "visits different Realms" and other similar titles.

I did not watch the videos so it would be premature to call it a cult. But their rhetoric would fit a cult. I'd agree though, that the titles are not really abt suicide. So maybe more general cult, than suicide cult?

While i like ublock and use it myself, i hope not everyone uses it! There need to be different adblockers. Same as just one browser, or one forum is vulnerable to different things, so would adblocks be.

I agree with you, that even the devil would run away from localised scripts.

Just pointing out that even if everyone is using English, there will be differences. These differences can make it hard enough - no need for more stuff on top.

Even if everyone is using English, there will be cultural differences. I used to work at a company which had a lot of indian externals working on their code base. Whenever I had to work on a mainly Indian developed project i had to get used to how they wrote things. Usually things where named a bit different. Not by much, but enough tho throw me off a couple of times before i got used to it.

IMPORTANT: I am not shitting on how they used English, merely pointing out that they used it differently from how i would have expected.

I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:

Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." Which FUTO does - they won't allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task...

If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: "Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.", Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: "{...}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {...}", you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.

Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: "An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code." These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.

To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.

I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:

Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." Which FUTO does - they won't allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task...

If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: "Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.", Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: "{...}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {...}", you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.

Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: "An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code." These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.

To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.

I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:

Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." Which FUTO does - they won't allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task...

If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: "Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.", Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: "{...}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {...}", you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.

Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: "An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code." These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.

To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.

Since they encourage ppl to write plugins, hopefully someone will write an import feature.

I see where you are coming from. Still i would argue that it is open source, since it is open for everyone to see.

The explanation for this more restrictive license was that they want to prevent what happened to newpipe. Some ppl repackaged newpipe with additional crap, put ads on it etc. They want to have the legal geounds to combat these things.

While I don't think, they would go against me for forking it and tweaking things here and there - they have the legal ground to do so...

Not sure if the 145°C is a citation/translation error by the site. If the mushroom is boiled in water (e.g. hotpot), it will never reach those temperatures.