I use it as my main browser on Mac and iOS since some time. It's stable enough, but there are _some_ sites that will not work. They are very few, but it happens. When it happens at the end of a long process (maybe registering) it's particularly painful, but in general it works just fine.
The main benefit is that Orion (contrary to Firefox) has a business model. The downside is that it's not open source. They have some explanation on why, but it might be a deal breaker for someone.
Couldn’t care less about any of that. English is the world’s dominant language and will remain so for the foreseeable future. There’s nothing wrong with that. And subtitles exist already or can be generated by addons. Most people don’t use them. So, once again, maybe don’t inconvenience the vast majority of users for some small subset of the population.
> English is the world’s dominant language and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Based on the fact that you said this I'm going to assume you can't read/write Mandarin, apologies if that's incorrect because that leads to my second assumption which is that you're unaware of the astonishingly vast amount of content and conversation related to open source and AI/ML you're missing out on as a result of not being able to read/write Mandarin.
What does what you wrote have to do with what I wrote, or the comment I was replying to? Literally every reasonably educated Chinese person speaks English as a 2nd language.
I'm missing out on all sorts of shit I'd find interesting by virtue of not being a prodigious polyglot. That fact has nothing to do with English being the global language for literally everything in every domain, nor with the fact that in-browser language translation doesn't require baked-in AI.
I mean, sure. I don’t generally give a shit about other people. That’s also not really relevant here. There will always be a dominant language. Currently, it happens to be English and it will remain English into the near future (250+ years). If you attend even a shitty school in a third world country today you are taught English as a second language. Look at the Philippines or sub-Saharan African countries. Everybody speaks English + their native language.
Crying about English’s global penetration is super weird while also being pointless, since it’s a fait accompli at this point.
You can and you should. There are people that are happy to pay for email, for search, for videos, for news, for music. I don't see why there wouldn't be people happy to pay for a browser.
The idea that software is free is completely wrong and should be something that an organization like Mozilla should combat. If software is free, there can be no privacy, it's as simple as that.
> The idea that software is free is completely wrong
> If software is free, there can be no privacy, it's as simple as that.
Strongly agreed. Free software, either $0 or through stronger licenses like the GPL, have their economics completely shifted as an unintended side effect. Those new economics tend to favor clandestine funding sources (eg ads or malicious supply chain code).
But sustainable funding honestly isn't Mozilla's strong suite (or tech's in general, for that matter).
> I don't see why there wouldn't be people happy to pay for a browser.
I admittedly didn't check the numbers, but a comment in a sibling thread says that if Mozilla was to replace their revenue with donations, they would have to become one of the biggest charities in America.
Is that even realistic? Like would they make that kind of money just from donations?
Working at Mozilla should be more than money. $200k/year is more than enough to be happy in most of the world. You don't need to compete on rock stars that must live in San Francisco, and focus on people that are happy with a high paying job and have enough idealism to accept "only" $200k/year.
Interesting. I don't know if you intended it, but algorithm free means no recommendations to me - even no recommended videos alongside existing videos. You want a video? You have to search for something.
I think that is a surprisingly good solution. You can still access educational information, or really whatever videos you want, but you have to actively seek them out rather than ingest whatever is spit out at you.
Search results are pretty much the same thing though. It's a ranked list of recommended videos. It's just based on your text instead of the video you're watching.
I've used plugins like unhook in the past which do exactly this and it's nice. Now I just follow channels via rss and block everything else on the page. Same deal.
> The data on social media harms is mixed at best. We know for a fact fast food, cosmetic ads for girls, are strictly more harmful.
True, but let me remind you that we didn't have conclusive data on smoke harm until the 50s, but this doesn't mean that smoking was not harmful before, nor that we were lacking any clue before coming to a conclusive study.
At the moment we don't have any conclusive study about e-cigarettes, but I'm sure you would never give kids e-cigarettes just because we don't have 30/40 years worth of data.
> This is nothing more than speech control under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children"
This is a bit more complex than this. Kids and adolescents online are targeted with all sort of techniques to leverage their attention in order to make money. I understand the speech control worry, and I agree up to a certain point, but I don't see how ignoring the problem makes it any better. What are the alternatives we have? I'm genuinely asking, not advocating for TINA. I have two kids and I see the effects of social media on them and on their friends.
Keep in mind that this cannot be offloaded to families, for multiple reasons:
- many family just don't have enough data or knowledge to make informed decisions
- until the network effect is in place, banning your kid from social media while all of their friend are online can be impractical and cruel
- parent decisions can affect kids health and overall society outcome; allowing a wrong decision by the parents (because the society doesn't want to handle the problem) would be unfair for the kids and no wise for the society.
As in many aspects of life the best solution is neither white nor black, but a shade of grey, and is far from being perfect. Looking for a perfect solution is a waste of time, resources and unfair for those that are affected in the meanwhile.
I understand the concerns, and probably Australia approach is not the best, but it's also the first. We probably will need a period of adjustments to reach a sound solution.
This should be the first and most important question anyone asks when trying a new product/service. If I don't understant the business model and how much I could be locked-in, I don't even bother wasting 1 minute on the product (I might tray that to get inspiration, but I probably wouldn't use that for anything serious).
> If I don't understant the business model and how much I could be locked-in, I don't even bother wasting 1 minute on the product
Personally I do it the other way around, first I try it out and see if it's useful, then I'd figure out if I'm willing to accept the tradeoffs of pricing/lock-in.
If you do it the way you suggest, wouldn't that mean you can't actually understand if the business model is fine because of the benefits you get? Seems backwards to me.
100% agree. Why even question the business model if that's not a product that I would use. First should be "Can I use it?"(meaning does it run on my devices etc.), then "Do I find it useful?" before anything else.
If I know the price is something I'd be willing to pay for a thing that is useful, I evaluate as such. If I know that it's a price I'd never pay, I still want to see what it is and try it because I'm curious. Don't hide information from me.
Example: enterprise licenses that are meant for a huge org rather than an individual let me know that I shouldn't get excited about a tool because it's not for me. Happens a lot because I'm very into networking and automation.
reply