Sven Slootweg @joepie91@pixie.town

@bananas I take two of each of these every day:
https://www.medicijnkosten.nl/medicijn?artikel=MYCOFENOLAAT+MOFETIL+ACCORD+CAPSULE+250MG&id=ae22dff31813323d5689fc92175eab9f
https://www.medicijnkosten.nl/medicijn?artikel=MYCOFENOLAAT+MOFETIL+ACCORD+TABLET+FILMOMH+500MG&id=c2d5126cba9b958d298bb206ee8344dc

(Yes, one is a tablet and one is a capsule, this stuff is packaged weirdly)

@bananas Also even the generics are probably the most expensive medication I have right now lol

@bananas I expect that it's particularly sensitive to light (eg. instantly useless, rather than just accelerated decay), combined with the specific application of the medication (prevents organ rejection) being life-threatening if it goes wrong

@bananas It also exhorts you to keep it in the box to protect it from light, so I suspect it's just light-sensitive and the risk is in the film coating getting chipped and making the active ingredient ineffective

@bananas Err, film tablets*

@bananas It's also really explicit about how you're not allowed to pulverize it

@bananas These are just film capsules; a similar text was on the box of both the brand-name stuff (CellCept) and the generic replacement

@deneb

"aka. "you may not use firefox to abuse mozilla's services"."

It's not at all clear that that's what it means; "the AUP" could just as easily be interpreted to mean "the bulletpoint list", which then applies to Mozilla services *and* things that explicitly say the AUP is to be followed (ie. the browser). This is in fact the common interpretation of AUPs that I've seen in other places.

"my point was though, removing the old blanket statement does not in itself change anything, and they have valid reasons for removing it, however bad that looks"

The point is that a lot of people do not feel that those are 'valid reasons' at all (because the reasons are 'we want to be able to sell data'), and that is precisely why people are getting upset about this. That, and Mozilla reneging on their supposed forever-promise of not selling data, and what that implies about its future, *in the context of all the other stuff*, like them acquiring an advertising company.

This was never just about a ToS change. It's about the trajectory that Mozilla has been on for the past years, and the full picture of how it has been changing. The ToS change just made it explicit. Arguing that people didn't understand the ToS changes 100% correctly, even regardless of whether that is the case, completely misses the point of the complaint.