user812

What does that question mean?

Thanks for your comment.

Some/Many HN commentators love what one could call the collective helplessness associated with authoritarian scientism and materialism - the idea that we are thrown into a ruthless and cold universe where life has emerged out of random and no easy solutions exist but instead only costly manipulation of small particles like genes and other molecules may safe us, but only in a distant future that we will probably never reach. Only persons of authority associated with the institutions in power may guide us to the holy land.

Due to that philosophy there are many comments discrediting possible solutions.

Iphone SE users aren't a small pool of users.

The decision by Apple is either based solely on making more money short-term/mid-term while ignoring a part of their customer base, or waiting for the right entry point with introduing a new bigger full screen but overall smaller model.

Many things Apple did in the early days weren't making sense from a market standpoint, like giving away software for free. At least that's what MS would have told you at that time.

That's why it's hard even for Apple to really price in the economic long-term cost of not supporting high-income and higly influental niche groups - there isn't only monocausality to consider when calculating ROI.

Until Mozilla is free from Google et al., all "problems" related to blocking ads are merely theoretical.

Thanks for the explanation.

I don't blame or rate Mozilla, I was just trying to explain why they are unable to move, due to their ties to Google.

I don't think it's a good or bad thing, but it's the reality.

Mozilla is probably trying it's best under this conditions.

Besides that, solving technical problems is possible if there is the will to do it.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

It's not like the web/society consists of one collectivist "blob" that speaks in unison.

What would Google do if Mozilla blocks all ads browser wide by default? (Which they can't do adhoc because it is probably explitically forbidden in their contract with Google)

The answer will give you a clue about the question who is the product.

Irregardless of semantics, Mozilla is entirely dependent on the privacy invading ad system.

Everyone knows that default settings matter, as around 80% of users never change much in their browsers, and it is this majority user base which forms the foundation for the contracts between browser makers and search engines.

Everything is a product when you define product as "that which is produced", which is the coherent and 'materialized' output of human activity.

I will probably start using or at least trying it again when they publish version 1. For now, it's just not remotely comparable to Firefox et al. when it comes to customization, control and stability.

It's basically a chrome copy plus future abilities (for now). So Chrome is a better choice until now for me.

The fundamental question is who decides. Ideally the browser is the product, but not the user. For that, the browser needs to solve the question of the flow of money.

Using Firefox makes you the product, because Mozilla monetizes you with selling you to Google. That is not a browser that "puts you first" or promotes the "open culture of the internet".

Giving people the ability to chose whether they want to participate in the monetization makes Brave more of a browser that puts "you first".

Besides that, Mozilla is basically a company, and their non-profit organization is basically a fig leaf. Even if you don't agree with this assumption, the browser is as commercialiced as any other project, as proven by Pocket, Google search partnership and Amazon affiliate links.

The Brave browser also doesn't claim this is "what the internet is about". On the contrary, the default settings in Brave make the Web essentially non-commercial and ad-free.

Finally and philosophically, there is no collective "we" you talk about, only users who are free to chose from a variety of browsers and products.

Other than that, there is definitely some form of irony in the fact that the people on brave.com wear a cap with a corporate logo, but are implied as being free from corporate influence. The message would be more consistent if there were no logo on the cap, and one could argue this implies that Brave is at best a transition towards a better state.

Interesting. I'm not really into physics, so it's helpful to learn about the mainstream position. I know I use sloppy wording.

I still agree with Tesla that empty space can't have any properties though. Things that don't appear logical, probably aren't.

It was "disproven" based upon a different philosophy.

You can't disprove a philosophy though, you can only try to understand different philosophical models next to each other.

The Einsteinian philosophy represents materialism and a world without meaning. It was problematic right from the start when mental gymnastics was needed to explain how energy can move through nothing, or how nothing (space) can have properties.

Funny that you mention experimental evidence, as most of physics is basically theoretical nowadays. (That's why it's called theoretical physics, dark matter included)

No, it is fundamentally wrong in itself, because it went into the wrong direction 100 or so years ago, when physicists ignored the aether model.

100 or so years ago physics went into the wrong direction, ignoring people like Tesla who argued for the aether model.