321–330 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the guy who started Brave used to head up Firefox before the employees revolted and demanded he be fired over politics.
"politics" is one way to describe him donating a large sum of money to a bigoted anti-gay cause and losing the trust of his employees.
I first used Firefox when it was Phoenix, back in 2002. You downloaded a zip file, extracted it and ran it. For the next 20 years I used Firefox. But I could feel the performance difference from Chromium browsers. I finally threw in the towel and switched to Brave out of the collection of them now. I hated switching because it meant yet another user lost to one of the remaining handful of unique engines for browsing…
Used Firefox from long ago, but switched about 3 years ago when I just was getting way too many problems with firefox not running SaaS stuff. Couldn't run Salesforce on Firefox. Maybe there was some way that someone knows of here, but I didn't and was not going to spend 200 hours trying to find out. So after extensive decision-making process of looking at everything, I chose Brave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that they aren’t on the side of the booker. They are on the side that makes them the most money. Incentives are not aligned to provide the best possible experience for consumers. I would have expected them to at least say “this is not ok, we are looking into this relationship with this hotel. We own responsibility for this hotel that we ostensibly vetted to be adequately integrated with our systems to not…
Yes, but you are blaming them for being unable to resolve what appears to be an unresolvable problem that a hotel you booked directly wouldn’t be able to help with either. Incentives don’t matter there if nobody is in a position to do anything. I think Booking.com is by far more reliant upon repeat customers than hotels. If a hotel screws up a booking, sure the customer isn’t going to come back but they probably were…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Numerous times I’ve booked direct with the hotels and it’s cheaper than or same as 3rd party.
Booking.com requires the cheapest price, unless you are talking about the price from the hotel’s rewards program, which they will push very hard. It’s a contract loophole that works out for everyone except the non-savvy (or privacy-conscious) consumer.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/XtDkLZj.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember: In the first 20 years of Google existence (or in any 20 years of the semiconductor age until recently) Moores law had over 13 cycles. A lot of what used to be hard problems before isn't anynore. The web also grow tremendously, and probably user expectations too (in the beginning of the century we were told in school not to speak to search engine like we would to a human, but with keywords and operators).…
If anything my expectations sunk massively between 2009 and the introduction of Kagi. To be blunt: for me, mainstream search engines Google and Bing very much feel like the things they replaced, Altavista and Yahoo, just with some fancy bolt ons like maps etc. I understand some people like to be able to write sentences to their search engines, but as long as the results have worse quality than they had 15 - 20 years…
Just started testing Brave Search, and it scored a rare 100 on the first test: If you type in the name of a favorite boutique hotel, will you get that hotel's true website -- or the usual hairball of third-party intermediaries? (For anyone who's ever tried to modify a reservation, the difference is astonishing. If you're booked with the hotel, all kinds of adjustments are at least possible. If you're booked with Book…
That's simply not true. I just did a search now to see if anything has changed. I randomly searched for hotels in the Seattle area for a 5/18 reservation. The 3rd item in a hotel's result [1] is the hotel's direct booking price. It matches the same reservation on the hotel's website [2]. Another hotel's result [3] has the lowest price as direct booking. Again for another hotel in NYC [4], the 3rd item is the hotel's direct price.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/XtDkLZj.png
[2] https://i.imgur.com/gHJgB3I.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Politics. Stuff that's irrelevant to the development of Firefox. Which is the only thing Mozilla should be focusing on given how far behind they are.
Perhaps people don’t like to support people actively working against their rights. By using Firefox you support Mozilla, so you support the CEO financing political campaigns you don’t agree with. The CEO is a special role that represents Mozilla. It’s simple, the guy had to go.
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200708202554/https://brendanei...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what do they censor?
After the invasion of Ukraine they announced they would be removing sites "associated with Russian disinformation." They haven't provided a definition of what that includes. Lots of DDG users were upset because this is the type of thing they objected to with Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they have 200 employees on linkedin, many of whom are not engineers. How they can carry two such major and complicated projects(browser and search) with such headcount?
search.marginalia.nu consisted of 1 Swedish engineer and 1 server last I heard and still managed to outclass DDG in a number of query types relevant to me. In fact, back when I used DDG I think I fell back to marginalia more often than I fell back to Google, partly because of my dislike for Google and partly because Google doesn't respect my queries - which of course is a contributing reason for my dislike for them.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're everywhere by default. When I tried Brave out they had a wallet that popped up in the toolbar you seemingly can't uninstall, there's some sort crypto token reward thing (that you can't get rid of on mobile), on the new tab page there's sponsored crypto ads, and disabling this stuff, intentionally I suppose, is the only thing that does not sync so it always pops up on every new device. Not since the early 2000…
The crypto stuff is opt-in only, including on mobile. If you accidentally enabled it, you can disable it by clicking on the settings icon and going to 'Brave Rewards' and turning off 'Brave Private Ads.'
* The wallet is enabled by default.
* The new tab page shows crypto ads by default. I couldn't figure out how to opt-out of these despite a couple of minutes in the "customize dashboard" menu. I know the option exists, but it's well-hidden.
* The BAT rewards icon is enabled by default, as well as the new tab card, as well as injected tip buttons on Github, Reddit, and Twitter.
* BAT rewards itself is not enabled by default, but there are no less than 3 distinct notifications asking me to enable it.
* Brave news is not enabled, but again there are multiple requests to enable it hidden throughout various menus. It's also not clear how Brave news interacts with Brave rewards. If I only enable news, do I still get the in-feed ads without the reward sharing, or is the news feed ad-free, or will only certain ad channels be shown?
So no, the crypto stuff is not opt-in. It's mostly opt-out with the BAT rewards program specifically being opt-in.
