EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY said:
Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.
Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.
Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.
If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question
I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered, because thousands of journalists are not one person we can ask, it’s not meant to be taken 100% literally.
Slam does not imply violence or force lol.
Of course it does. That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way. Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):
I love when people want to quibble about word definitions, being super strict or loose whenever it suits them. In the real world, people use words loosely and over time the connotation changes. Hence definition 4’s existence here.
My main problem with using the word this way is that it’s rarely honest. I am annoyed by it because it sounds stupid, but like I said, more importantly:
if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.
I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered
Except… it can, because I did? We’re talking about a common industry practice here, not some enigmatic unsolvable mystery of the universe.
Of course it does.
No.
That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way.
Oh is it? Do you have an assertion for that? You really think that when they say “X slams Y” they’re trying to make you think there’s a physical altercation going on?
Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):
You’ll notice I said in the context of headlines. Of course in other contexts slam can mean violence. But because we’re specifically talking about headlines here, not, say, discussing a WWE performance, it’s very obvious what “slams” means.
You’re really going into the weeds here. You asked why they use “slams” in headlines so often, and I gave you an answer. I don’t see why you feel the need to argue about it so much.
They use it because people understand what it means, it’s emotive, and it’s very concise compared to “criticises”, “chastises”, “denounces”, “castigates”, or “attacks”
Actually, based on your previous argument, you’d probably hate it if they said “attacks” too, as you could also interpret it as violence.
I stopped reading. Being an idiot on purpose isn’t as cool as you think it is
It’s just flat out ridiculous to say that the word slam has no connotations of forcefulness or violence. Even if I didn’t put the goddamned dictionary entry in your face to prove it. Bye.
That’s not what I said, can you even read? Are you afflicted with cretinism, lad?
