skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah, you can fork. Take AMP or Android for example.

With AMP, the instant you fork and change a single character of code it becomes incompatible because part of AMP is a verifier that makes sure only the official version is used with Google's cache. Without being able to serve your custom AMP pages from Google's AMP cache the entire point to its existence goes away. The reason? Typical "security". "Tampered" versions of AMP could "do bad things", laughable considering that vanilla web pages allow you to do absolutely anything javascript allows and google has no problem showing those pages in search results or letting them freewheel in a Chrome tab. If Google wanted AMP to be open they would have built it into their chrome browser so the browser could enforce restrictions while allowing users to run whatever customized AMP implementation they want.

And Android. Android used to honor the promise of being open. Years ago. This was before every manufacturer was encouraged to lock bootloaders, and back when platform SDK's and drivers for hardware were generally available even if they were kinda hard to get. This was also before the Android kernel heavily diverged from mainline Linux, and before "google play services" grew from a tiny app to a framework that powers half the OS features.

Nowadays you can only run your own Android on devices specifically built for it. Open distributions like CyanogenMod are dead or dying. Google Play services is closed and proprietary, and probably about 95% of popular apps require it to work. Even if you manage to get your own Android distribution built and running you will need to side load all your apps, and most apps just don't work because they've been built to depend on proprietary bits that Google has snuck in all over the place.

Google is better at the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy than Microsoft ever was. So good, in fact, that they have many well intentioned people defending them to the death even as they choke off the very open source projects they created. Virtually every platform that Google runs for more than about 5 years goes from completely open to something impractical to run yourself. If you don't believe me look into any of their older projects that are "open source".

After a certain point it's free software as in "free coupons". Somewhere in the mix, eventually, the price of of their "charity" is passed on to you.
I won't argue the relative merits of the marginal value of a human life vs. mass extinction of species

We aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and when we do, it likely won't be from the effects of preventable climate change. We may in fact have another ice age sometime in the next several million years - but no amount of money, protests, cutting back on emissions, carbon taxes, or other measures will stop it. Dinosaurs had an ice age, and as far as we know they didn't have cars.
With Chrome, people could let Chrome download it for them in the background.
I was told once that the WSJ has the best reporting because it's the newspaper of Wall Street and other powerful businessmen: they're going to demand accuracy and neutrality because their understanding of the market (and thus their livelihoods) depend on it. Other groups have less actual need for facts, so are more likely to be satisfied with fewer of them (e.g. politically biased coverage).
Mobile App Development Companies – Get Your Own App Today‎
Well there is life outside of the SV :-p
Decoding Chrome’s HTTPS UX
India successfully places a whopping 104 satellites in one go
For people who've already committed to Chrome, it might just be a one-time annoyance. But the time when Chrome had an seeming lock on the top seat in the browser wars has come and gone. I can definitely see this hurting new adoption, which would rightly make Google nervous.
Modern web tech powering PC games: League of Legend's new client
I don't look for neutrality, I think it's largely illusory. Everyone has a self-interest. I don't expect them to deny that, I expect them to give me proof of what they say. So I prefer to look at a diverse set of media, avoiding filter bubbles, compare the stories everyone covers, and see what core set of facts (if any) these sources agree on. Then I look at the authors and the sourcing. Where did they get their facts? Can any of these facts be corroborated elsewhere? All anonymous sources are treated as if the author themselves said it and evaluated accordingly. Even the 'stopped clock' outlets might be right twice a day. It's amazing which parts of stories get covered by some outlets and not others.

The end result is not too different from this:

https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-s...
PSLV-C37 Successfully Launches 104 Satellites in a Single Flight
Fantastic achievement and a testament to the great work done by an army of engineers and scientists. 37 successful launches and counting; worth standing still for a moment and appreciating that level of success in an inherently risky business. Well done to ISRO and the PSLV team!
> Basically voters can no longer be trusted with making up their own mind in a democracy and they need to be automatically manipulated for the greater good

That sounds very much like Noah Chomsky.

The pretext of Media Control is that the general public is a bewildered herd that needs to be kept entertained and divided, less they engage in unwelcome "activism". Namely, democracy.
It could make sense as an optional download if you do want Android support. But, Google would never increase the download size of their browser to that extent.
> Except that all the numbers on his net worth are based just on his word and he's clearly a serial liar.

No they're not, the link I provided also showed figures based on Forbes estimate of his net worth.

$40,000,000 (Trump's share of his father's fortune) invested in the market in 1974 would be worth $1.22 billion in 2015 (when he announced his campaign).

Compared to Forbes estimate of his net worth at $4.5 billion and Trump's own estimate of his net worth at $10.0 billion at the same date. Both beat the market handily and in fact Forbes could have overestimated his fortune by triple the amount and Trump would still be ahead.

> An intelligent, principled person

Again, I'm not talking about principled, I'm making the argument purely that Trump is intelligent. Not whether he is principled, or a good person, or a good businessman or even if he's a good president.

> He has no governing philosophy

I don't know about that. From what I can tell, he seems to consistently follow the same or similar playbook outlined in 'The Art of the Deal'.