211–220 of 443 posts
Conspiracy theory — could this have been done on purpose for browser share dominance purposes?
a) That'd be a very untargeted way to get that effect; Firefox isn't the only app that's going to be making calls like that.
b) Mozilla doesn't need any help losing marketshare in this era.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To save a search: "Ambient mode uses a lighting effect to make watching videos in Dark theme more immersive, by casting gentle colors from the video, into your screen's background."
Neat idea, I bet the intern had fun implementing it, why was it on by default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you sure you want to invoke this logic? Because following it through imagine the energy savings if Firefox users switched to Chrome. Ironically, Mac users routinely complain about how power-hungry Chrome is on the Mac. Safari is significantly more efficient.
Is that because of the quality of Chrome or because Safari is a "blessed" application and probably gets to do things other applications do not? Entirely serious question. Apple is known to severely privilege their own applications over competitors.
It’s entirely possible that Safari is intentionally avoiding features that make it wake up-
I doubt that it does anything unavailable to other browsers, thats MS territory, because they wanted features. I feel like safari, by contrast, doesn't want to add features.
Quick napkin math of the wasted power : Firefox has ~300e6 users, let's assume the bug wasted 5 extra watts 4 hours a day. That's 250 megawatts saved, the equivalent of an average coal power plant. Because some Microsoft engineer missed a bug.
> That's 250 megawatts saved, the equivalent of an average coal power plant. Because some Microsoft engineer missed a bug. Are you sure you want to invoke this logic? Because following it through imagine the energy savings if Firefox users switched to Chrome.
This is why I left firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat idea, I bet the intern had fun implementing it, why was it on by default?
This seems unnecessarily passive aggressive. Everyone makes mistakes or bugs, intern or not. It makes no sense to get this salty about basic human error. Also there's nothing wrong with implementing minor UX enhancements. If anything redirect the frustration to the leadership that doesn't prioritize fixing these kinds of errors.
I don’t think there is a bug? It seems like a sort of image processing thing that might take a bit of compute run. To the extent that there’s blame, I’d lay the blame at the feet of whoever decided it should be turned on by default.
Quick napkin math of the wasted power : Firefox has ~300e6 users, let's assume the bug wasted 5 extra watts 4 hours a day. That's 250 megawatts saved, the equivalent of an average coal power plant. Because some Microsoft engineer missed a bug.
> That's 250 megawatts saved, the equivalent of an average coal power plant. Because some Microsoft engineer missed a bug. Are you sure you want to invoke this logic? Because following it through imagine the energy savings if Firefox users switched to Chrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it more like an auto maker issuing a recall to fix an injector issue in all their cars?
An analogy can only get you so far, but in this case the bug is caused by Microsoft Defender, yet Firefox, the car manufacturer, is a different entity. So I wouldn't call it a recall.
One could also argue that the OS is the car, the browser is the chauffeur, and the user is the passenger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat idea, I bet the intern had fun implementing it, why was it on by default?
This seems unnecessarily passive aggressive. Everyone makes mistakes or bugs, intern or not. It makes no sense to get this salty about basic human error. Also there's nothing wrong with implementing minor UX enhancements. If anything redirect the frustration to the leadership that doesn't prioritize fixing these kinds of errors.
There are millions of FF Mac users, it’s not unreasonable to expect YouTube to do some basic testing. Never got any issues showing ads, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems unnecessarily passive aggressive. Everyone makes mistakes or bugs, intern or not. It makes no sense to get this salty about basic human error. Also there's nothing wrong with implementing minor UX enhancements. If anything redirect the frustration to the leadership that doesn't prioritize fixing these kinds of errors.
I don't think there's any error to fix. It's a feature - casting light from the video onto the UI, using JS, surely takes that amount of CPU. The question of why it is on by default stands - because it's little bit of eye candy, vs people's laptop batteries, CPU that could have been used to get other stuff done faster - so also their time, device thermals etc... I don't think it's just unnecessarily salty to point ou…
Quick napkin math of the wasted power : Firefox has ~300e6 users, let's assume the bug wasted 5 extra watts 4 hours a day. That's 250 megawatts saved, the equivalent of an average coal power plant. Because some Microsoft engineer missed a bug.
I love calculations like this and hope they are part of every engineer’s line of thinking. I originally came across this thinking in Andy Hertzfeld’s book - https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Saving_Lives.txt Performance is time, energy, heat. It’s one of the easiest features to get and there are lots of tools, research, and philosophies to help get it. Memory and storage are similar. For anyone working on l…