951–960 of 970 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realise their userbase has been consistently dwindling right? For the last decade almost.
Naturally - losing a few hundred million users is likely why they are trying to find a different strategy than focusing on privacy or what power users comment on in the following decade and expecting better results for some reason. Mozilla's funding comes almost entirely from the Google search deal. They can't afford to let the user count continue to dwindle on a principled stance alone. They either need to find work…
Unless you can show increase in userbase with any of the BS Mozilla has done recently against their community, I'm not sure how I can agree with you.
They started this around 2015. One freaking decade with zero results. Apart from increase in Mitchell Baker's salary YoY, I dont see anything else increasing. In fact they sold Rust and MDN to their competition.
Most importantly, community unrest has only increased. Not decreased. And the userbase dwindling aligns with the same. So tell me, make me, a "GNU fanboi" understand how I am being unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A browser with current definition obviously doesn't "need" AI. And we also know all too well how it's going to turn out - they will both use the AI to push ads onto us and also collect and sell our personal data. However, a strong locally-executed AI would have potential to vastly improve our experience of web! So much work is done in browsers could be enhanced or automated with custom agents. You'd no longer need an…
You must use extensions for very different things than I do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A browser with current definition obviously doesn't "need" AI. And we also know all too well how it's going to turn out - they will both use the AI to push ads onto us and also collect and sell our personal data. However, a strong locally-executed AI would have potential to vastly improve our experience of web! So much work is done in browsers could be enhanced or automated with custom agents. You'd no longer need an…
These are all the same sort of vaporware promises that come straight from every AI booster. These features will never exist and you should feel bad for pretending they might.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The wider point here is that you can only use FF as long as Mozilla can fund it and Mozilla can only fund it as long as Google funds them. At some point, it will be cheaper for Google to pay monopoly fines than funding Mozilla.
Fines aren't a way to just buy your way out of obeying the law. At some point if they persist in monopolistic activities then they will get broken up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There may not be "a solution", but recognizing FUD for what it is, is a part of the "whole" solution. If you don't have something to contribute (like a direction, suggestion, correction), then as they used to say, you are "part of the problem".
Shaming organizations into changing course sometimes works. And even if it's useless that doesn't make it FUD.
Moreover, when there's a pattern of it occurring, for at least the past 5 years...
Not saying that firefox is perfect, I have issues with its project leadership too, but its nowhere near as bad as the (most vocal) critics like to claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Could you summarize this into an argument of your own?
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hacker News commenters are frequently unaware that their use cases and customer preferences do not reflect the average customer demand in the market." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46192577 There's a reason I put that in my profile. :^)
One of my favorite examples of this is when HNers insist that if only an auto-manufacturer would make a simple car with tactile buttons and no screen or creature comforts it would sell like hotcakes.
But we're way off topic here. :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your points are valid. But what made me finally switch was that it is open source, that it has been out for roughly a decade now, and that Brendan Eich's opinions from 2014 are mostly based on his Catholic faith at the time (which obviously is likely to have changed/evolved now that we're a decade later). > Moreover, I don't really understand how Brave expects to be a viable business without deeply betraying their us…
> which obviously is likely to have changed/evolved now that we're a decade later I refuse to make any assumptions there. Either he says he changed, or I treat him like he hasn't changed.
That kind of attitude is why things like right to be forgotten are being pushed. The world isn't set in stone.