Mozilla is Introducing 'Terms of Use' to Firefox | Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice
-
Well it's a sponsor, it's not their product.
-
Most consumer sites are optimized for chrome and even safari, firefox & Edge (Obviously) face issues with scripts and plug-ins.
This is why it's dangerous that Chrome has such a large amount of market share. Instead of using standard features, sites are using Chrome-specific features and even relying on Chrome bugs that don't exist in other browsers. It's exactly the same reason Internet Explorer was bad.
-
Building a browser from scratch is going to cost well over a million dollars in development costs. I don't think they'd be able to achieve it without sponsors.
-
I'm not saying they shouldn't seek funding, but maybe not from companies that hosted and sold literally Nazi tshirts.
-
What's that saying about sitting at a table with a Nazi?
-
Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it
Or, hear me out, that former donors don't trust them anymore!
But also that a lot of people don't want to donate, basically when they could only donate an immeasurably small amount, to a company whose CEO gets an unimaginably huge pay, that could be used for significantly boosting development.
Personally that's a big reason I rather want to support smaller projects, or even that of size like Bitwarden. -
they have to dip something for sure. THEY HAVE TO REDUCE THE CEO PAY BY MEASLY 20% AND FUND DEVELOPMENT FROM THAT!!!
or by even more.
-
and then, "uh, we are removing the URL bar in the next version because our statistics say nobody uses it!!"
-
and then, "uh, we are removing the URL bar in the next version because our statistics say nobody uses it!!"
-
soon! they can come any year now!
-
Cough cough, that's true the biggest cost is salary 17,097,933. But 10 millions are paid to C-Suite and 4mil to contractors who do the job.
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/b200-mozilla-foundation-form-990-public-disclosure-ty23.pdf
Just look into the books. -
calm down
sweet summer child
I know these tactics, they're designed to goad me into an emotive response so I lose the argument!
They're not a case in themselves and your smugness is distasteful. Your interlocutor is treating you with more respect than you are showing in return.
-
LibreWolf is annoying in that it doesn't work on my Mac with VPN split tunneling, a seemingly known issue they haven't fixed.
-
I feel like everything is getting corroded, the capitalists are wearing down everything
-
PAID ONLY BY A RELATED FOR-PROFIT
Conveniently missed note above
️The remainder of the executive team is paid what appears to be a fairly reasonable salary.
-
lol. Are you for real? You think the Firefox development team can be funded by 20% of the CEO’s salary?!
-
The great part of open source is forking.
And forking it will, Firefox will be forked with a version of a different name that doesn't have this shit, and then the name Firefox will fade into history as a once great product that formed the basis of a different grey product.
Fork you, Mozilla
-
Yes, I was admittedly tired when I responded to this thread, and then seeing such long winded responses was quite annoying to me.
But I wasn't trying to goad them, I was just exhausted at having to spend so much time and energy just to make my point, which seemed relatively non-controversial to me when I originally posted it.
-
I’m not. Apologies if I was unclear, but I was specifically referencing the fact that you were saying AI was going to accelerate to the point that it replaces human labor, and I was simply stating that I would prefer a world in which human labor is not required for humans to survive, and we can simply pursue other passions, if such a world where to exist, as a result of what you claim is happening with AI. You claimed AI will get so good it replaces all the jobs.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying. I never claimed that AI would get so good it replaces all jobs.
I stated that the potential consequences were extremely concerning, without necessarily specifying what those consequences would be. One consequence is the automation of various forms of labor, but there are many other social and psychological consequences that are arguably more worrying.Cool, I would enjoy that, because I don’t believe that jobs are what gives human lives meaning, and thus am fine if people are free to do other things with their lives.
Your conception of labor is limited. You're only taking into account jobs as they exist within a capitalist framework. What if AI was statistically proven to be better at raising children than human parents? What if AI was a better romantic partner than a human one? Can you see how this could be catastrophic for the fabric of human society and happiness? I agree that jobs don't give human lives meaning, but I would contend that a crucial part of human happiness is feeling that one is a valued, contributing member a community or family unit.
The automation of labor is not even remotely comparable to the creation of a technology who’s explicit, sole purpose is to cause the largest amount of destruction possible.
If you actually understood my point, you wouldn't be saying this. The intended purpose of the creation of a technology often turns out to be completely different from the actual consequences. We intended to create fire to keep warm and cook food, but it eventually came to be used to create weapons and explosives.
