Interesting that the author, Callum Locke, seems to be a real person with a real reputation to damage. Previously this would have been a trust signal to me, I figured real developers would be less likely to go rogue given the consequences.
Depends on the personal situation. An extension with 2 million users can generate a very meaningful revenue. My extension has only 300k users, but offers that I received over years [0] would have been significant in some lower-income country.
For example, your income for the 10k users will be ~ $ 1000 per month, users 20k ~ $ 2000 per month… 100к users ~10 000 $, and so on.
ARPDAU (Average Revenue Per Daily Active User) basis - In average we have $0.007-0.011/user, US is $0.018.
Surely it's reasonable to assume that a company doing some dubious 'marketing intelligence' scraping of people's data from a Chrome plugin is going to both inflate the numbers they put in offers and try to scam their way out of paying if you actually accept. I wouldn't consider them real offers. They're marketing. The real world payments, if you get them, would be lower.
Browser extension maintainers routinely get contacted by more or less shady directions. This is likely a case of maintainer selling out after getting a good offer.
The drawback is that if you think your session is hanging and want to bail with ~., you have to press enter, which might actually make it to the server and execute something.
I'm not sure if I was just holding it wrong, but I couldn't create images reproducibly using Docker. (I could get this working with Podman/buildah however.)
I also felt a little guilty when making the switch! Totally irrational of course, but still there's something to be said for sticking to the the original.
> everyone just wants to use nano (which I understand
I do not understand.
I have a very capable colleague/friend who uses nano. Unix hacker type, so I think it is what he is used to from growing up. I still find it strange, but such is the nature of preference.
reply