Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brave layoffs

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: Brave layoffs

#121

Post by [deleted] »

toyg wrote: post #118
mdaniel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to draw one's attention to the (at this point impressive ) number of CVEs related to memory issues in Chromium's C++ codebase: https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20... and control-f for CVE Even granting that some of them come from dependent libraries, if the world's arguably best funded software engineering organization can't keep C++ footguns out of an application that runs untrusted c…

The point is that all this is not seen as valuable by users and market leaders. You don't gain marketshare in b2c by saying "my gizmo is more memory-safe than other gizmos", you have to show features. Chrome's process-separation was a feature: you could easily dispose of non-responsive pages, which other browsers couldn't do as well. Even then, it wasn't really why Chrome took off - it took off because of deep integr…

[deleted]

Re: Brave layoffs

#122

Post by Georgelemental »

init2null wrote: post #112
Georgelemental wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave's CEO (Brendan Eich) used to be co-founder and CEO of Mozilla. They kicked him out because in 2008 he donated $1000 of his money to an unapproved political cause. Can't put time/effort into something that is more interested in virtue signalling than improving.

CTO would've been appropriate, but not CEO. Mozilla could not keep a CEO donating to ban gay marriage. I rather doubt even Microsoft would've kept him. It's divisive and distracting, especially for a public benefit organization. They made the right call.

7 million people voted in favor of Proposition 8. Would you ban all 7 million from any position of authority? What of the 6.4 million who voted against, are they "divisive"?

Re: Brave layoffs

#123

Post by bobajeff »

flagrant_taco wrote: post #39

We aren't going to see browser competition unless and until we fundamentally rethink what the internet should be. The specifications are simply too complex to foster any meaningful competition. There's too much ground to cover playing catchup and Google has such a large market share that, combined with their data and ad monopoly, allows them to create new specs and features that focus entirely on growing their busine…

I'd like to see an alternative to the Web as well. The truth is that we don't need web browsers as much as we need say Wikipedia, YouTube, Reddit, Amazon, Facebook, GitHub, StackOverflow etc. And we don't need those sites so much as we need the data that is on those services.

What is a better source of how to tutorials YouTube? What's a better venue of asking questions than Reddit and StackOverflow? What use is the Internet without those?

Re: Brave layoffs

#124

Post by init2null »

Georgelemental wrote: post #122
init2null wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CTO would've been appropriate, but not CEO. Mozilla could not keep a CEO donating to ban gay marriage. I rather doubt even Microsoft would've kept him. It's divisive and distracting, especially for a public benefit organization. They made the right call.

7 million people voted in favor of Proposition 8. Would you ban all 7 million from any position of authority? What of the 6.4 million who voted against, are they "divisive"?

It's fine if he voted against it. But a donation disqualifies him from that position if for no other reason than it's distracting from Mozilla's purpose. Whether good or bad, the foundation has a strong human rights focus.

Gervase Markham was a dedicated outspoken fundamentalist at Mozilla until his death and was very influential, but he wasn't in a leadership position. Big difference.

Re: Brave layoffs

#125

Post by mdaniel »

izacus wrote: post #116
mdaniel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to draw one's attention to the (at this point impressive ) number of CVEs related to memory issues in Chromium's C++ codebase: https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20... and control-f for CVE Even granting that some of them come from dependent libraries, if the world's arguably best funded software engineering organization can't keep C++ footguns out of an application that runs untrusted c…

So what's the monetary value of not having those CVEs? How did any of that actually touch users beyond having to wait a bit for Chrome to autoupdate?

https://search.brave.com/news?q=chrome%20exploit%20in%20the%...

I'm delighted to hear that you (and I) were not personally impacted by those but to say "I didn't get in a crash, who cares about seat belts working" is comically misguided

Also your "for Chrome to autoupdate" perspective makes me wish I could search for every single red Update screenshot I've seen in presentations or Zoom meetings

Re: Brave layoffs

#126

Post by Georgelemental »

init2null wrote: post #124
Georgelemental wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7 million people voted in favor of Proposition 8. Would you ban all 7 million from any position of authority? What of the 6.4 million who voted against, are they "divisive"?

It's fine if he voted against it. But a donation disqualifies him from that position if for no other reason than it's distracting from Mozilla's purpose. Whether good or bad, the foundation has a strong human rights focus. Gervase Markham was a dedicated outspoken fundamentalist at Mozilla until his death and was very influential, but he wasn't in a leadership position. Big difference.

Would you have the same opinion if he had donated to the other camp? Does the timing of the donation also matter, in your view?

Re: Brave layoffs

#127

Post by [deleted] »

Georgelemental wrote: post #60
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #19

I'm going to treat this like a product engineering discussion User Story: As a Private Citizen and Engineer, I want a graphical multi-input interface to load, view, interact with and post documents to remote and local HTTP servers ("web-browsing") on any personal computing device. I want web-browsing to have out of the box default security and privacy guardrails that are well documented can be disabled or modified by…

Brave's CEO (Brendan Eich) used to be co-founder and CEO of Mozilla. They kicked him out because in 2008 he donated $1000 of his money to an unapproved political cause. Can't put time/effort into something that is more interested in virtue signalling than improving.

[deleted]

Re: Brave layoffs

#128

Post by mthoms »

charcircuit wrote: post #101
mthoms wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn’t. They did append their affiliate id to type-ins for a single crypto exchange once. They quickly retracted and apologized. That’s bad, but not nearly as bad as what the parent commenter described.

>They did append their affiliate id to type-ins for a single crypto exchange once They didn't do this either. There was an omnibox site suggestion that included an affiliate id. Nothing got appended and people were able to see the affiliate id before hitting enter to visit the site. These site suggestions could also be disabled in the settings.

Thats nearly exactly what I said? - If you typed the domain into the address bar, and pressed enter (obviously) the affiliate id got appended. I'm not clear what distinction you're making here.

Re: Brave layoffs

#129

Post by primax »

I would have thought a browser's users were sticky enough to not be effected by the economic environment. Or at least as much as most businesses.

I suppose their advertising revenues could be impacted.

Re: Brave layoffs

#130

Post by izacus »

mdaniel wrote: post #125
izacus wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the monetary value of not having those CVEs? How did any of that actually touch users beyond having to wait a bit for Chrome to autoupdate?

https://search.brave.com/news?q=chrome%20exploit%20in%20the%... I'm delighted to hear that you (and I) were not personally impacted by those but to say "I didn't get in a crash, who cares about seat belts working" is comically misguided Also your "for Chrome to autoupdate" perspective makes me wish I could search for every single red Update screenshot I've seen in presentations or Zoom meetings

Again, how did that materially affect users to the point they'd switch?
Post reply on HN