tigroferoce

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.

Live captions and dubbing can be a game changer for:

- non native speakers - moving away from the english-centric web - impaired people

I second Bitwarden. It works well, and it even has a business model.

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.

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.

I mean, you can try the product, sure. And then decide depending on the price. But would invest time into a product that doesn't even a pricing page?

Maybe that instead of protesting against the regulation we should ask the platforms to provide ads-free and algorithm-free service to kids under 16.

> 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).

You should try Kagi for this experience.

Yes, but it's not common knowledge. The content disaster needs to be wide and strong, so that the impact is not negligible for most of the people.

I believe that we will soon live in a future where the content will be fake by default and we will validate the authenticity by looking at the reputation of the source. Each time we will read, listen, or see a new content we will think "is this coming from a trustworthy source? otherwise I will not believe any single word of this".

In this context, the more fake news/content we see, the better it is, because it will only make the process of getting there fast.

There are dialects, but they are more similar to different languages rather than different pronunciations. For instance dialect of Piedmont, my region, are somehow similar to French, because of geography and history.

It's common for people of one area to not understand dialects from a very different area, but the language is one, and you pronounce all the letters (almost, there are some exceptions, but they follow a rule), and if you were to write the dialect you'd write anything you say.

There are many variations on the cadence and on how some words are used, but generally speaking the language is the same everywhere. But then, of course, Italy is a small Country and only a few millions people speak Italian.

I wasn't hinting that one language is better than others, just that it comes very natural to us to read that alphabet. Once you map in your head some signs to some sounds it's almost all there (provided that you know enough English to infer which words are written for enough time to learn the missing signs).