skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
People, who choose Chrome (not even Chromium) over Firefox for a fraction of a second faster load speed of some pages (, which is often even "fake" as Google artificially slows down some pages for Firefox users or engineers them in Chrome optimization specific ways,) disregarding any privacy concerns, are simply not the target group of Firefox developers, because they do not care about privacy enhancing features. To sacrifice ones rights to gain tiny speed improvements or often only the feeling of being faster – It is simply a laughable trade-off to make. Many people and even institutions of education, which should know better, choose to do so apparently.

If one is concerned about privacy and data being sent to Google using FF, well, there is always IceCat. Managed by the people, who stand most firmly for your rights in computing and software. GNU.

It is also quite well known, that Chromium and Chrome are memory hogs. One OS process per tab? Really? I've also not read anything about improvements on that front in the last many months, while at least with Quantum the FF developers aim to keep memory usage low and cores optimally used - at least in their pitch.
I think Chromium has a long way to go, before it gets close to low memory usage for many tabs scenarios. As a tab hoarder and curious person, memory usage patterns like the one of Chromium are not acceptable. I am sitting on 238 tabs in IceCat right now and 33% of my 8GB RAM are in use, with several other applications, including one electron based open at the same time. No problem whatsoever to have my browser and multiple other memory intensive applications open.

The same seems infeasible with Chromium and its forks. I've seen it with double of my RAM and much less tabs on a co-worker's machine. Chrome just ate all of his RAM. I cannot remember, whether it crashed then, or he had to close the browser, to continue to work. Both are quite disruptive for getting things done.

I think FF devs have done a great job with Quantum. Unfortunately one cannot always trust Mozilla entirely (see some cases of "studies" and the money they get from Google), although they often do great work and enhance online privacy. For me it seems the better option to stay behind a shield of people, who take privacy and user rights very seriously and remove telemetry and similar things from FF and use the outcome of that.
What Is the Unicorn in Your Resume?
BalenaOS Raspberry Pi Installation
Thank you for the reply, I guess it's a matter of usage/machine, since I have none of the issues you mentioned.
Samsung wants to patent a curved screen for smartwatches
>that for some people start ups are a fashion or a "thing to do"

There could be a vast array of underlying reasons for them simply wanting to try doing a startup.

Maybe working for someone else 40 hours a week isn't giving them sufficient purpose, and they want to try something that will? How many of us feel this but never act on it?

Maybe they believe that their skills and work ethic can gain them significantly more income than what they can get grinding 40 hours in other people's businesses, and grinding interviews every couple of years to get meaningful salary increases, and are willing to take on the risk to see if they can make that happen for themselves?

Maybe they see life as being short and want to try something different for themselves to escape the expected timeline of school -> university -> job(s) at compan(y)(ies) -> retirement -> death?

Some people seem to simply want to do it for the sake of it, but there could be many underlying motivators than making some sort of vacuous fashion statement which you're implying.

>some people have money and time to burn without the stresses of daily life of things like a demanding job or children.

Some people inherit money. Some people save like savants. Others may have got a payout from a previous company going public or being acquired. Some are money orientated and have built careers around it, and have a partner with similar traits who'll carry the income if they believe in the other's idea.

The main thing is that it's not your money, so why would you care?

>To me a startup makes amazing sense when you have an original disruptive idea and the passion to unload all your time and energy into the spirit of that idea knowing you will probably fail.

To you, maybe, and thankfully you're part of a tiny minority with such opinions. Stay-in-line, continue grinding at other's businesses and therefore lining other's pockets unless you've something "disruptive" to produce? Businesses should only emerge if they've a niche offering? Really?

The free market, and well-being of the consumer, relies on competition. Competition does not happen in a market comprised only of companies "disrupting" one thing or another. Starting a company on the basis of having identified something a product, or service, does already but you believe can be done better, is as legitimate as bringing something "disruptive" to the market.

The chains you've bound yourself in with in regards to the life choices you've made and the tolerance to risk produced by them shouldn't be the basis on which you judge the activities or choices of others.
The late Colonel John Boyd also chose to steal computer time as part of doing the work to develop his “Energy Maneuverability Theory” for developing USAF dogfighting strategies.

I’d say you’re in decent company.

:-)
If you think they're sub-optimizing because of biases and a poor process, maybe that represents an opportunity for you or someone else to use your method to outcompete them.

Their track record suggests they're doing pretty well.
Yeah there is definitely data leakage using that method.
He empowered her to choose her own justice, her own restitution.

On a related note, I'm reminded of an article that examined the effect choice has on us, and that often, we're happier without it. One of the examples was even, I believe, a study about major medical decisions, that showed patients were happier when doctors decided for them. But I forgot the exact scope of the medical decisions, and can't find the article or study - if anyone else can, I'd be very grateful.

In any case, this article serves as a fine example - the victim is unhappy about being given choice over the punishment.
//increment i in for loop
For (i=0;i++....

Var x; //define variable x

X=4; //give value of 4 to x

Everyone knows what that code does. The comments aren't necessary.
Chicago and Milwaukee. Madison Detroit. There are plenty of tech hubs throughout the country.

Sv isn't special anymore. You might not want to live in the Midwest. But plenty of talented people do. I would want a 7 figure salary to live in sv for many obvious reasons
FWIW, the long term result (post this article) was to recommend that no such thickeners be administered to anyone under 12 months of age (it was not only neonates who suffered). This was was an observational response pending any actual study of the cause (whether manufacturing or inherent to the source material)

I’m not aware of any subsequent study but the result is not unreasonable.
YouTube New Ideas Week, 'YouTube for Kids', & the Quest for the Cup (2011)
Ditto. I'm from Scandinavia and I've seen developers snicker at much less self-absorbedness from management.

I also cannot understand the obsession with 30 minutes of 1:1 every week.

I consider that an extreme version of micromanagement. Give us developers the big picture so we know what we need to work on and can see what's important in which way, and we will find out how it's done.

If you don't trust developers to be able to communicate and plan complex jobs without 30 minutes of 1:1, how can you write "excellent communication skills" in the job posting?
I disagree. You are paying extra for a middleman with serverless technologies that you don't really need in the beginning.

If the goal is to start a profitable company, you don't need it. If the goal is to burn through as much VC capital as you can, then it makes sense.
I think Mozilla should have a stance about this, such as « We don’t exclude white males » or « We don’t exclude Christians ». It is an extremely difficult thing to say in 2019. The series Silicon Valley did an excellent parody of the IT scene’s position about Christians in S05E05, where a gay christian is outed by a founder, and everyone asks him to apologize for ruining his reputation.

Not because he’s gay. Because he’s Christian. And there is no way I would donate to an organization that is so much anti-Christian that they consider their pro-life positions as criminal.
An excessive punishment is just as unfair as one that is too lenient.
From memory, but you can just look it up:

DANE is untenable in browsers because (1) it's much too slow and (2) a lot of networks won't pass DANE lookups; if your HTTPS connection relies on DNSSEC/DANE "just working", the web breaks for those people.

So instead, you staple DANE records to the TLS handshake with an extension.

But that's incoherent: the purpose of DANE is to establish a root of trust for TLS connections, but the extensions carried in a TLS handshake depend on a root of trust. In practice, if you can get an X.509 certificate issued, you can strip stapled DANE records. So there's no point to stapling DANE records.

Solution: dynamic pinning and continuity over multiple connections.
No, you make it function properly before I consider “[giving] it a chance”.

Firefox is ridden with decade-old compliance bugs, and is generally a pain to write applications and documents for. That's just part of why web applications and documents work worse in Firefox than they do in Chromium.

Mozilla should derive from Chromium, if they want to actually deliver a web browser worth choosing. They can even fight their small battles with niche concerns more efficiently this way; but alas they will choose to make their users suffer needlessly for the scintilla of a principle of “implementation diversity”, which in practice just means “Firefox workarounds”.
Where are you coming up with 20 different dialects of French? Are you talking about the various French-based creole languages, which are totally separate languages (e.g., someone from France has essentially no hope of understanding a native Hatian Creole speaker). If that's what you mean it's a bit silly to call them "dialects" instead of "separate languages" because Haitian Creole and French are as different as English and French.

Or are you talking about the various regional languages/dialects/"patois" in France? If so, sure, many could be called "dialects of French" but they aren't spoken at all outside of France so it isn't really relevant to Quebec.
It's sounds more like the clause that a company can terminate a feature that you may be using and making money from if they don't find it financially viable anymore.

It's really a pretty standard clause
It feels like you're ignoring the fact that the people who will actually download sandboxie are quite a bit smarter, and quite a bit more familiar with "finding a download link" than the people you're describing?

A giant "download" button is perfect if your general audience is "everyone". Sandboxie is _nowhere near that level of popular_ nor could it be. Heck, that's literally why it's going open source right now: it's so niche, with such a narrow demographic, that there's isn't even any appreciable amount of money to be made from the people that DO use it.
Containers still have quite a bad UX though. It’s OK to open a tab in the desired container and load Facebook, but whenever you leave Facebook via a link, it will stay in the same container. If you eventually end up on a website you want to be logged in to, you’ll have to manually switch to the right container again.

It seems like containers are a powerful concept with multiple different uses, but the UX for each of those uses would need to be different and at the moment it’s not optimised for any of them. Maybe there are extensions that can fix this for specific use cases but when I looked it seemed hard to work out which ones I’d want.
Yes, you might as well use "underling" or "minion".
There's a lot more to working relationships than "I'll come in when expected and do my work to the best of my abilities while being professional".

There's a whole host of instruments that more mature companies use to uncover the different working styles and professional psychologies of employees. E.g. knowing that one colleague wants just the facts and isn't interested in the back-story whereas another wants lots of context can be very useful and ultimately help one become more effective professionally.
The only thing that keeps me from moving back to Firefox is the lack of support for precision touchpads---a feature present in Chromium-based browsers, Edge UWP, and even Internet Explorer!

Several issues have been opened on Bugzilla in this regard [1][2], none of which have been resolved to date.

[1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1564022

[2]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=890878
Maybe you won't have a good time somewhere if you find the local language hilarious to listen to, unrecognizable or no-good.

Just my 2 cents, and wishing you the best wherever you are now
Unpopular opinion:

In Silicon Valley, people managers can easily be a waste of time and money, and can cause unnecessary drama on your team. Think about the kind of so-called developer who would rather manage people than write code.

We still need founders, executives, directors, advisors, etc. don't get me wrong. But has anyone ever come across an engineering manager worth their salt? Why did we start deploying people managers en masse to engineering teams? I miss the holy trinity setup: Dev, designer, PM. It worked well IMO.

Our industry is shooting itself in the foot with Engineering Managers. The ones I've come across are self-obsessed, as evidenced in these cringeworthy READMEs and this article that was written.
Also less development overhead, when one does not need to develop for Chrome any longer. Seems like a sweet deal to take. With a more focused development, we might see more improvements for the code of the Firefox extension.
The French started earnestly colonizing Quebec less than 100 years before the British conquest so that analogy does not seem apt at all...
I think the devil is in the details when it comes to this argument. Some philosophy speculation ahead.

1) It's unclear which parts of our perception reflects the real world and which don't, and also how to measure how accurate they are. We obviously see objects as much more than what the photons representing them that hit our retina tells us. The brain creates all kinds of backstory and assumptions based on its model of the world, however, I would argue that the basic shapes we see are accurate.

So basically the geometry/shape of a face, of a chair, of <pick any object> is real, while the extended cultural, practical and personal associations the brain attaches to those are "not real" (or rather, we see a chair as a utility we can sit on, so we see both the shape of a chair but also potential uses for it, so it becomes an extended model of ourselves+chair, but that doesn't mean the shape isn't real). Also even though we can change our extended model of objects, we don't normally change our base perception, e.g. a chair always looks the same shape even though we may see different uses for it in different contexts. I would argue we really see the shape of the chair. This then leads to difficulty knowing how to define what is real/accurate and what isn't.

2) It's unclear whether the extended models we have are reflective of the real world or not, and if so how much. Just because I see a chair as a utility I can sit on, doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect reality. In fact you could say the model reflects a more abstract truth about how my body fits into a chair, so it becomes a more encompassing truth about bodies+chairs. Hell you could even include that it includes some information about how my muscles tire and need rest and so on.

3) I think the basic idea is true and interesting. We clearly do not see the world like a camera does, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it doesn't reflect reality at all. I haven't looked at this authors papers, but I saw an interview where he mentioned some statistical measurement of how organisms who saw the world as it actually was had a lower survival rate than those who do, and I'd be curious on how sound that argument is. The devil is in the details again and it sounds to me like such an argument could be interpreted several ways.
My reasons:

1. I feel I can trust Mozilla much more than I can trust Google.

2. I can run my own sync server for passwords, bookmarks, etc.
The funny thing for me in all this is that I'm an immigrant from the US, a native English speaker whose education was 100% English (including my PhD earned at a Canadian university). And yet, I was required to take English language tests in order to get permanent residence.
> You're a commander of a small airfield in the Pacific and the last you heard from the US was that tactical nukes had been used in Europe

If you hear the boom and you're not dead... then it was probably tactical.

Strategic nukes aren't launched one-at-a-time. They'll be launched thousands-at-a-time. You're simply dead, you'll be pulvarized by multiple ICBMs before you even know what hit you.

The plan is to launch your strategic nukes in retaliation BEFORE they hit their targets. Alternatively, you have enough secret nuclear submarines to launch your strategic counter-attack after-the-fact (even if the mainland is destroyed).

-----------

The launching of any ICBM would probably trigger the end of the world as we know it. ICBMs fly at such speeds that they cannot be reliably stopped: they're basically spacecraft. Once launched, their target is effectively going to be destroyed within 10-minutes or so.

The real risk of strategic weapons is misidentifying a flock of birds as an ICBM (or other such technical glitch).
The limitations of empirical knowledge have been known for... a few thousand years now. It is a little disconcerting that (some) neuroscientists appear to be completely ignorant of basic philosophical problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
I miss that too but the good news is that it is coming thanks to the EU funding[1].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21321430
On Mac it remains very apparent that most UI is constructed by Firefox rather than macOS native.
> The reason I thought it would be helpful is that I am not a high feedback person. I seldom praise (need to work on that)

The reason I would be afraid to standardize manager READMEs is specifically that I do not trust the average manager to publicly acknowledge and privately work on flaws like that. For managers who do that, I’m not that concerned about the exercise because it’s more likely to produce something useful for the employees. For the other type of manager, I’d be afraid of accidentally creating the expectation that the employee needs to adopt the manager’s style, which I would privately recommend to any employee, but which I would vehemently oppose as anything resembling an official expectation.
Kant? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
Nonsense. The hacker ethos is to tinker and learn and there is a very high degree of regard for technical competence. Conversely, incompetence, laziness, especially blatantly so, especially publically is the biggest dick move there is. Wasting other people's metal energy is not nice.

In hacker ethos, you are appreciated for doing your homework and being right; that is very nice. You are a dick when you are lazy, wrong, or wasting people's time and energy.
Silicon Valley’s Online Slave Market
It's standard terminology and has been standard terminology across the board for my two plus decades in the workforce. It's not dehumanizing.

It's usually written as "direct report" to differentiate from your boss's boss, who you indirectly report to.

From the OED:

noun: report; plural noun: reports

4.an employee who is supervised by another employee.
T-mobile's login page last month dropped Firefox support -- returned a cryptic complaint about "agent ID".

There is actually something we can do to make T-mo reconsider: Call up one of their agents and play the naive user reporting the problem. Then voice a complaint when told that "the site supports Chrome and Safari". These calls get logged as an expense, presumably charged to the earlier policy decision to drop FF.
As I said, because we need to compare it to other entries.
Just like we used to do it with Java and Silverlight.
Any role can be filled by someone bad at that role.
There are -10x developers just as there are -10x managers.

What is the difference between a manager and an executive? A manager is an executive of a small part of a large org.
It started by asking for my email address, so it's an instant No.
I didn't downvote you for dissenting, and I explained this in my comment.

But what can we take away from the anecdote? We don't know anything about your system's hardware components, we don't know if you're using X or Wayland, we don't know which versions of Firefox you tried. We've not seen any BugZilla reports or crash reports. We don't know what websites are problematic.

I would have no problems with folks saying "on device X, I had issues where the Firefox would use 100% of a CPU core when I visited website Y. Here's my https://profiler.firefox.com/ link, I reported it on BugZilla but the bug hasn't been fixed yet.". That's specific, useful anecdotal information that developers can follow up on and users can use to evaluate whether it's a deal breaker for them or not.

Generic comments like "performance is terrible for me, I've tried multiple times" are just going to get replies from users who've had no problems at all.
I know people at both Tesla and Waymo, and Tesla does not pay as well as Waymo.
All existing Rust libraries only support a subset of COM capabilities and deployment scenarios.
That fits with my observations matching the decreasing propensity to procreate with IQ. At some point we become literally too smart for our own good.
I just wish they had per-container proxy support. That would make me immediately switch to Firefox.
> ...for a fraction of a second faster load speed of some pages (, which is often even "fake" as Google artificially slows down some pages for Firefox users or engineers them in Chrome optimization specific ways,) disregarding any privacy concerns...

That is false and defamatory. Chromium is noticeably faster than Firefox on a large swath of popular websites and web applications, the majority of which Google does not control; particularly on resource-constrained devices, and on Linux.

Memory usage comparisons on different machines with different pages and different other applications running are beyond meaningless. Chromium will use less memory if you don't have much, and it will use more if you have memory to spare; I'm sure Firefox will do some similar things.
Open-source AI tool quickly isolates the vocals in any song
I switched from Firefox to Chrome right after I discovered that malware on Firefox had changed so many about:config settings that I couldn't untangle my own changes to about:config from the changed made by the malware.

That and my having seen repeated assertion by HN user tptacek that Chrome's security team is the second best in the industry (behind only the iOS security team).

Well, that and the lack of any signs that Mozilla management was prioritizing improving Firefox's resistance to malware. (Mozilla's interest in using Rust I saw as a positive sign, but not particularly directly relevant to the question.) At the time, one of Mozilla's priorities was introducing a new mobile OS.
It's not really though, it's just a description of a formal relationship within the business context.

I'm a manager, I report to someone (my manager, who also reports to someone) and likewise I've people who report to me (my reports).

It doesn't change that we're all people, with our own quirks, personalities and emotions.