Yeah, I think you could say that :^)

The most important things to remember about enshittification are the reasons why it happens in the first place and the particular manner in which it does, time and time again. To anyone interested in this topic, consider giving Doctorow's talk a watch. It's great, and explains all of this really well.

Production constraints. Bringing in Maus parts to most tank factories would result in utter chaos as the Tigers and Panthers chased after them for fun.

Enshittification will often involve doing things like this, yes. But as the link itself states, the actual meaning—per Doctorow's original definition—is an entire process, and a little more descriptive. These things are not the same, one is just frequently a symptom of the other.

Sorry if this comes across as pedantic, I'm in a personal quest, of sorts, to protect the original meaning because I think it's too important to lose. To anyone else reading this: please, don't use enshittification when you really only mean "the platform is doing something bad."

For the quoted behavior, I'm a big proponent of "asshole design."

I had already seen this design a few weeks back and was then, as I am now, not very excited about it :^(

It's possible they're trying to address the issue of the old toolbar being too crowded, and that's neat, but I don't think this is the right way to go about it:

• Many people don't use visual back and forward buttons, me included. And I don't intend to use them anytime soon—my phone already has a back button, and I genuinely can't remember when I last wanted to go forwards.
• The "new tab" button is an interesting shortcut, but the functionality was already there in the long-press action of the tabs button. I'm sure this will be useful to some people, but again, not me. That's 3 useless buttons on my screen, now.
• If you change the address bar location to top in the customization settings, this design starts making a bit more sense, but that's not exactly reassuring. I put the address bar on the bottom because I like it there, I like being able to quickly change or edit the URL without reaching for the top of my phone screen.
• When they eventually implement tab grouping, assuming users get a quick tab group nav bar near the bottom, this toolbar will look ridiculous. With that height, it'll be less like a toolbar and more like an entire mission control center eating up your screen.

So...

It seems like they had the right intentions, but somehow chose a really weird direction to go in. I don't like that the way to disable this is hidden in the secret settings, it doesn't exactly give off the impression that it'll remain an option in the long-term. I'm going to try sharing my feedback with Mozilla, hopefully it'll be useful.

P.S. it's far from all bad. I'm actually really interested in the new three-dot menu design, and there's a lot I could write on why. It's just that the toolbar is the most used and seen part of the browser; is it really asking for much to have it be closer to my ideal instead of an abstract generic user's?

P.P.S. upon further thought, large parts of this comment are just plain silly. Come on, I trust they'll add a toggle as the feature leaves nightly, it's clearly not ready yet. This is what happens when you forget nightly is for testing, you make a fool of yourself on lemmy. Some concerns remain (e.g. tab grouping), but again, that's what constructive feedback is for. I've already seen multiple people very happy about the navbar, to the point that I almost feel bad for not liking it haha

It wasn't that difficult for the Linux community a while back, was it? I am once again adding my name to the volunteer list, though, just in case.

Regarding the version, I think I remember some p.dev discussion on the possibility of migrating to Sublinks. Wonder if that's related.

Edit: I don't think it is. Seems they simply want to wait a week or two before updating.

If I was one of your readers, I'd much rather read on your self-hosted blog (bonus points if there's RSS)... But I'm not. Since I'm neither a reader, nor the one who defines what fun means to you, I'm not sure my—and other commenters'—words should have too much bearing in your decision.

I say, do what makes you (and your readers) happiest. Even if medium is by some measure bad, I'd guess it's "only" about as bad as every other closed-up commercial option—I think they all suck. Look into what you actually care about, though, e.g. privacy, then make your own call.

For what it's worth, I agree with people saying medium is almost inexplicably annoying. I consider myself a patient person most of the time, yet nothing kills my interest in an article faster than seeing websites like medium full of dark-patterned cookie banners and popups and newsletters and signups on the other side of a link.

But maybe we're simply the wrong crowd to ask.

I can't imagine any way this is possible without crowdsourced information, and at that point you're just interacting with a community (likely the same one as you already are) through a different interface.

But if such an interface existed, it could be a cool project.

This isn't a good summary, just a random assortment of paragraphs. The quotes lack all context. Autotldr tries its best, but it clearly wasn't enough this time.

If I read the article properly, Britain is waking to what's going to be a long-lasting and shameful Brexit-hangover.

Little will be gained—if anything at all—and it's expected that the results will be disappointing for all involved. There's no fixing years of wasted, directionless political effort; rather, Britain will now enjoy plugging, bit by frustrating bit, the holes it dug into itself.

It baffles me that people actually voted for this. For all its faults, there's nothing like the EU. Yet, after this mess, they're just rolling with it?

I don't know about movies, but have you seen their highly informative and helpful comments on tech and free software? Amazing stuff, could probably make a career out of it.

I'm getting a bit tired of seeing boobs nonsensically attached to concepts/objects. It's not like female coding characters is a sin per se, but I often find that the material would lose nothing in its absence. Like now—there's an entire panel dedicated to showing their love. So why bother?

So yeah, I dislike it and also think it's unnecessarily.

That said, if by "so we know it's not a gay romance" you mean that to be the artist's intent, I don't see why that must be the case. Without looking into them, it seems just as likely that they could've simply not thought about it at all. Maybe they're straight and just drew that. While it wouldn't be LGBT+ inclusive, it needn't necessarily be "so that people don't think it's gay."

Hope I didn't wildly misread or overanalyze your comment. You're clearly not glad, but I can't tell if you're adding the last part for the sake of humor, or if you were bothered by what you believed to be a possible LGBT+ exclusionary depiction of romance.

Can confirm it looks like crap on my mobile app of choice (Thunder). I'd consider that an app issue rather than a content one.