> Used through all of the apps and personally there's little incentive for me not to use Firefox/Fennec.
Your comment made me try Firefox for the Nth time right now.
And the rendering is still bad like I remembered it. Download the image locally and open it in an image viewer so you actually view the pixels 1:1, then see if you can tell which one is Firefox (I can): https://imgur.com/a/FsXuoa3
It always hurts me, when people basically say "I'm not giving up [something that has cornered the market] for the alternative, because [minor-grievance]", even though it is already clear that the monopoly is being exploited to make things worse for all customers.
I want to use Firefox, this was my Nth failed attempt at doing so. I just cited the first problem I saw again, not the only one as you're assuming. Mozilla has had years - literally over a decade - to fix such issues.
But hey, if there's one thing that's definitely going to convince people to do things they don't like, it's to diminish their grievances and guilt-trip them.
This whole debate is such a chestnut. Of course, you will do as you please, it's your right. But these choices do reveal values and priorities. Speaking personally (and, I suppose you will say, sanctimoniously), I choose to use Firefox despite its flaws because I don't want the internet to be privatized. I know what I'm missing out on. It's less important.
You're rather overconfident in your evaluation of people and not actually getting the sense of my values and priorities as you think you are. I care about these things and inconvenience myself a lot more than you realize.
When I do it it's because it is likely to make a difference in the ultimate outcome I want to achieve. I also criticize things when I think that criticism may have an impact on the ultimate outcome. What I don't care for is futility. In this particular case, it is absolutely futile to try to fight against big tech through shaming people into inconveniencing themselves for the sake of the free internet. You need to address the root causes to even stand a chance. Part of that is politics and legislation, and part technology. Getting Mozilla and other OSS to give a damn about the basic flaws in the user experience so their users actually want to use Firefox is going to have far more of an effect on the outcome you want to reach than shaming users for not inconveniencing themselves.
Use whatever, but that screenshot posted of your grievance is pretty telling. Whatever difference you're citing as unacceptable really puts the 'b' in subtle.
Also, no one is out to get you. You complained about failing to use Firefox, and folks are trying to explain to you that you can use it if you want to. But you assert that you fail to do so, despite wanting to, but for unspecified reasons. It makes it hard to assist, which I think is all people want to do. You keep bringing up guilt and shame, but you're the one that said you wanted something you keep failing at getting, so folks naturally want to help.
If you don't want to use Firefox, just use Chrome and move on. That's what everyone else does.
Thanks for asking. Depends what time period you're asking about. My memory's faded so there may be inaccuracies here or things may be out of order, but this is what I remember.
There was a long era (years) when I loved Mozilla and used Firefox -- and then even Waterfox, IIRC because it was 64-bit -- exclusively. (As well as Thunderbird.) I did not like Chrome. IIRC at some point they started feeling like every update made them more bloated, broken, and unbearable in various ways. I forget all the exact issues but I distinctly remember rendering was a big one for all of them (I think it happened around the obsession with GPU rendering), my extensions constantly breaking or getting disabled because of "compatibility" issues forcing me to keep toggling flags in about:config being another, my toolbar styling/customizations getting constantly messed on every damn update up being another, the tab bar getting moved up like in Chrome when that was very much one of the reasons I liked Firefox being another, and slowness/bloat being another. I wasted too much of my time into finding workarounds, but eventually I couldn't take it anymore. Giving up everything including extensions like Greasemonkey and Stylebot and having the ability to customize everything just so I could have a better experience was painful, but I bit the bullet and switched to (I think Chromium first? and then) Chrome.
After that I basically stuck with them though I kept a Firefox around and updated it once in a while to see if maybe they would come to their senses and start improving the UX. They removed support for old-style extensions which immediately was like a punch in the gut. Regardless, a few years ago I figured maybe times have changed so I spent probably weeks on it (if not longer) and even sank quite a bit of time into manually porting porting my custom local Chrome extensions to it just to make sure I was giving it a fair shot. The snappiness was maybe better than before but overall I just felt like they didn't give a damn about longstanding UX issues people have been complaining about for years, and were too focused on other priorities. So I've stopped wasting more of my time on it until it passes a couple litmus tests, which it failed again today.
And don't get me wrong, Chrome has had its own issues and frustrated me too (MV3 being the most recent and frustrating), but at least it's not completely defeating the very reasons that drew me to it in the first place.
But the point being: I believe I've given it a fair shot enough times in the past, but I also have better things to do than fight with a browser vendor over the very things that drew me to their browser. For Chrome the speed was probably the biggest factor, and for Firefox it used to be UX/customizability. One of those companies understood that and never compromised on their core strengths, but the other never seemed to get the memo.
I mean, so is Edge. I can't say I feel more comfortable with them. Probably the most direct thing I can point to for Brave is that having cryptocurrency features in a browser doesn't give trustworthy vibes. And yes I realize there's a reason for it and there's a fairly high chance the vibes could be giving the wrong impression here, but when your entire digital life is at stake, that raises the bar for the risks you want to take. Whatever you think of Chrome or Google, the reality is that they're known quantities and I'm already using them, like most other people.
Feels like a hobbyhorse. The article discusses issues between the educator and the child, like:
> An even bigger problem, though, is muddle-headed thinking among educators. Some have fallen for the leftist canard that tests are harmful and grades are racist. Some have allowed reasonable worries about children’s mental health to warp into an excuse for low expectations. Some unhelpful habits acquired during the pandemic have stuck: children are still missing more lessons than before, and many teachers who relaxed their grading standards have failed to tighten up again.
I think we should look there and focus on what’s actually happening between the educator and the child.
Like so many conservative scare tactics, this is complete bullshit.
I hang out with a lot of teacher. Grade inflation is because if you dare give anything less to an A to a student, their parents complain to administration and administration always gives in and never stands up for the teacher. Same if students aren't turning work in - parents complain, administration says to pass them.
Educators are underwater, overworked, burnt out, and it's getting worse - and none of that is their fault. Every year they're asked to do more with less, which is why many of the best have retired or moved to other work.
Thanks for writing this out. I'd seen a lot of arguments for why we need multiple app stores, but I think this might be the first time I've seen someone crystallize the fact that an app store itself is a competitive business model that could provide better/cheaper services with competition.
None of those registries is comprehensive, even if they're literally all joined together, and the only one coming close to it SSA. IRS and passports is are particularly nasty ones to rely on because you'd systematically disenfranchise specific demographics like young adults, poor people, etc.
Yes, because profitable enterprises are able to grow faster than unprofitable ones. If you think something is good, and want more of it, making it profitable is conducive to your goals.
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
I mean he blatantly said it was because of their reporting. That’s an in the nose first amendment violation. Full text of his ban announcement is below which was surprisingly hard to find between his firehose of shit in truth social and every media report about it only quoting fragments of sentences.
> I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Some in the administration certainly are capable of 4D chess, but this event seems like the standard playbook: king got mad, and everyone is scrambling for a non-insane post hoc justification.
Even some Fox News commentators have come out against it, because they do not want an illegal precedent where they could be barred from a Democratic administration.
What is really incredible to me are the lifetime politicians who so quickly sacrifice their integrity to defend these actions. There are few cases that are so clear cut.
> Of course, if you don't agree with the ToS, Uber is also not forced to transport you. But that's fair enough.
Letting entities that hold the vast majority of the leverage and financial/legal/political power in a contract opt out of the legal system and pick an alternative with a financial incentive to side with them is perhaps "fair" to you, but a lot of people would disagree on the "enough" part.
Huh? You can only hold leverage in a contract, if the other guys agree to enter into the contract.
If the contract party A proposes gives too much advantage to party A for party B's liking, party B can make up their mind before they enter the contract.
Btw, if Uber is so powerful as you say, why do they bother with the tinkering around the margin and only force arbitration? Surely the bigger deal would be to jack up prices to thousand dollar per ride?
You seem to be missing that arbitrators have a financial incentive to side with the company, which pays them? Explained in this video: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49787720
I wonder how often this is the case. The one time I read the fine print when signing up for a service, it said that I had the right to disagree with the choice of arbiter, and get some national organization to pick a different arbiter independently.
I don't know how common this is, but yeah, this is a bare minimum that one should have with arbitration.
But, many of the members of that organization make their money from various forced arbitration deals, so that doesn't necessarily move the needle back towards the consumer.
This isn't specifically business vs consumer. The problem is ruling against the guy who brings you more business isn't good for getting more business. And you have a related problem with big fish vs big fish (for example, arbitration of union contracts) where you have to appease both sides--go something like 50/50 regardless of merits.
Very clear case, arbitration is fine. Fuzzy case, I would much prefer something that doesn't tip the scales in advance.
Note that the same bias problem exists with home inspectors. Realtors won't like inspectors that find things that kill deals. That one can be solved by hiring your own inspector with no input from the realtor.
Mr Rossman will literally tell you to use an ad-blocker to watch his videos and refuses to take sponsorships, actively does not want money from making YouTube videos and just wants to get the word out. I'd agree with you if it was literally any other creator.
Two things can be true at once, especially when talking about people’s behaviour. I don’t know this guy from atom, but if he’s a YouTuber then my instinct is to not trust him.
Louis Rossman does not take sponsorships, and turns off ads for his videos as much as YouTube allows. His videos are for his opinions, not making money.
The free software philosophy aside, I feel like another problem is that once you start accepting payments then you start accepting various forms of responsibility/liability/accountability/etc. along with it. At a high enough price it'd become worth it, but that might not be anywhere near the price that your customers/users want to support you at.
Your comment made me try Firefox for the Nth time right now.
And the rendering is still bad like I remembered it. Download the image locally and open it in an image viewer so you actually view the pixels 1:1, then see if you can tell which one is Firefox (I can): https://imgur.com/a/FsXuoa3
I'm staying with Chrome.
reply