Live data from Hacker News

Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

treeherder.mozilla.org

551–559 of 559 posts

Re: Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

#551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your advice to someone struggling to stay organized is "be organized", you probably don't have much experience with ADHD or disorganization problems.

If you say "just" then you're trying to justify it without effort. Most of the people I interact with have ADHD and yes it's annoying as fuck but I don't fault them or blame them when they communicate in good faith. Using "just" to justify it means it's bad faith. You choose to open tabs. Don't open tabs if you know you cannot handle that.

> If you say "just" then you're trying to justify it without effort

This is an interestingly narrow take on what is a pretty common broadly used phrase with multiple meanings. If you're familiar with people with ADHD, you should realize that ADHD isn't something you can "just" choose to ignore or decide not to be affected by. Executive dysfunction isn't something you get to opt out of.

That knowledge should clue you in that when I use the word "just" in this context that I'm not dismissing anything or treating ADHD like a joke or using it as an excuse to be lazy. Particularly given that I immediately follow up that usage by talking about practical strategies and techniques I've developed to try and mitigate the outcome.

My point with the word "just" is that there isn't some complicated reasoning going on in my head for why it's good for me to have 1000 tabs open, in the same way that it's not some kind of life strategy that I forget to eat when I'm hyperfixated. It's not a workflow or a decision that I've made about my life, it's just a consequence of ADHD.

> you're trying to justify it

Having a lot of tabs open doesn't need to be justified. It's not a moral failing. I don't need an excuse for having a lot of tabs open because it's not behavior that needs to be excused.

The only reason to mitigate it is because mitigating it makes my individual life better. It's not really relevant whether you or anyone else approves beyond that. I'm not trying to justify anything because there is nothing about the number of browser tabs a person has open that needs to be justified or condemned. Opening a browser tab is a morally neutral act.

I replied to a comment that was curious about why someone might have that many tabs open: was it easier to work that way? Is there some browser config that makes 1000s of tabs more efficient than bookmarks? No, the cause is just ADHD.

> You choose to open tabs. Don't open tabs if you know you cannot handle that.

??? I genuinely have no idea what you're suggesting or getting at here. People who open too many (?) tabs shouldn't be using browsers? What does this mean?

Given that you are saying you're familiar with ADHD, I know you're definitely not suggesting that the solution is to just choose not to open a lot of tabs in the first place. Because you know what executive dysfunction and impulsivity is and you're familiar with how people with ADHD operate, and so I know that you wouldn't make such a pointless or useless suggestion. But I'm at a loss for what you're actually trying to convey then.

Re: Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

#552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I invite you to imagine the equivalent but reversed scenario. What if Brendan Eich had been contributing money to the pro-gay-marriage campaign and had been forced out by right-wing staff at Mozilla? Would that have been appropriate?

Nope! But that's because extending civil rights more uniformly to more people is a good thing, and selectively denying civil rights is a bad thing. Any reductive moral framework that abstracts every possible political position into interchangeable spherical cows in a vacuum does a disservice to its users.

You think that gay marriage is a good thing, but many people do not.

The two scenarios are precisely symmetrical. The only difference is that the cause on one side is one that you agree with, and on the other side is one that you disagree with.

You cannot decide moral questions by couching them in terms of “rights” and assuming that whichever side “advances rights” must be the correct side. Why? Because you can do that arbitrarily either way and for anything. e.g. “admitting gay marriage denies people the right to live in a society where traditional marriage is protected”.

Now what do you do? Both sides can say their cause is “advancing rights”.

Re: Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

#553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope! But that's because extending civil rights more uniformly to more people is a good thing, and selectively denying civil rights is a bad thing. Any reductive moral framework that abstracts every possible political position into interchangeable spherical cows in a vacuum does a disservice to its users.

You think that gay marriage is a good thing, but many people do not. The two scenarios are precisely symmetrical. The only difference is that the cause on one side is one that you agree with, and on the other side is one that you disagree with. You cannot decide moral questions by couching them in terms of “rights” and assuming that whichever side “advances rights” must be the correct side. Why? Because you can do th…

> The two scenarios are precisely symmetrical. The only difference is that the cause on one side is one that you agree with, and on the other side is one that you disagree with.

Yep! That's pretty much what agreeing or disagreeing with something means.

But the reasoning you seem to be proposing is "here is something you agree with and something you disagree with, therefore those two things are interchangeable and you should not favor one over the other."

> Now what do you do? Both sides can say their cause is “advancing rights”.

I exercise human discretion and decide which of those rights is better, more valuable, more important.

In this case, that's not a tough call. Marriage provides a bunch of very concrete mechanical effects, from inheritance to medical decision making to finances to immigration. Whereas some people feeling happy about the fact that some other people can't access those rights is, at best, abstract and intangible.

And you'll also note that some of my previous references were to the uniformity of rights. Generally speaking, making rights more uniformly accessible to all people is better than having rights be selectively, arbitrarily limited to some people.

Re: Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

#554
post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but once I switched to vertical tabs (via Sidebery with Firefox), it is WAY more manageable. Multiple tab spaces, named groupings, and a scrollable view that doesn't crowd and shorten names make it great for having many items in there with little downside.

Does Firefox have the ability to hide the top tabs when you have an extension like this? Last I tried it, it required some finessing with CSS.

Yes, I've been using TST without the top tab list visible since about 2012.

Re: Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

#555
post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Firefox have the ability to hide the top tabs when you have an extension like this? Last I tried it, it required some finessing with CSS.

Yes, I've been using TST without the top tab list visible since about 2012.

As mentioned, I've done this before using CSS also.

The question is... is there an easier way these days or do you still have to use CSS?

Re: Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

#556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that gay marriage is a good thing, but many people do not. The two scenarios are precisely symmetrical. The only difference is that the cause on one side is one that you agree with, and on the other side is one that you disagree with. You cannot decide moral questions by couching them in terms of “rights” and assuming that whichever side “advances rights” must be the correct side. Why? Because you can do th…

> The two scenarios are precisely symmetrical. The only difference is that the cause on one side is one that you agree with, and on the other side is one that you disagree with. Yep! That's pretty much what agreeing or disagreeing with something means. But the reasoning you seem to be proposing is "here is something you agree with and something you disagree with, therefore those two things are interchangeable and you…

>> The two scenarios are precisely symmetrical. The only difference is that the cause on one side is one that you agree with, and on the other side is one that you disagree with.

>Yep! That's pretty much what agreeing or disagreeing with something means.

Not to me. The difference between us is that I am perfectly happy to work with people who do not share my political viewpoints.

Re: Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

#557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The two scenarios are precisely symmetrical. The only difference is that the cause on one side is one that you agree with, and on the other side is one that you disagree with. Yep! That's pretty much what agreeing or disagreeing with something means. But the reasoning you seem to be proposing is "here is something you agree with and something you disagree with, therefore those two things are interchangeable and you…

>> The two scenarios are precisely symmetrical. The only difference is that the cause on one side is one that you agree with, and on the other side is one that you disagree with. >Yep! That's pretty much what agreeing or disagreeing with something means. Not to me. The difference between us is that I am perfectly happy to work with people who do not share my political viewpoints.

Whereas I feel that Desmond Tutu covered this pretty well already: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

Re: Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

#559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8 x 4K monitors, I'm so jealous wow. I wish my work would give me even one, I'm developing on 2 full hd monitors :( I even do some design work so it's honestly pretty bad.

Thanks, to be fully accurate, it’s 6X 4K monitors normal orientation,, and 2x 2560p - 29 inch widescreen type monitors both rotated vertically , and touching each other (via one of those $60 or so floorstanding 40 inch tall dual monitor mounts from Amazon). I love my set up, I work for myself, and from home, so purchased it myself. The GPUs I use, used to be 2X Nvidia, P1000 Quadro. But as I was trying to troubleshoo…

Haha, I wasn't worried about the GPU price. I was worried about the price of 8 decent quality monitors.

I have a decent salary but I don't have throwaway money to just spend 2k on monitors. Or on anything for that matter, that requires a year of saving :x

Post reply on HN