The money Mozilla gets from Google comes with some sort of gentlemen's agreement where they try to avoid disrupting Google's business. It's nice if they diversify their revenue so they can become more independent.
It's because since FF3.5 they only made the browsing experience worse. To the point I hate updating Firefox, because it there's a chance it will do something silly I'll have to fix.
But all the other browsers are even worse. I'd really like to move to qutebrowser, but it doesn't have good enough adblocking. I'd give Zen a try, too, but it's not in the repositories of my Linux machine and I'm never installing a browser that is not in the repositories.
> Don't look now but Mozilla has been getting plenty of money. Money by itself is not an issue.
This isn't quite a complete argument; getting money from funding sources who have strong opinions about your behavior can mean that you can't afford to do some things you might otherwise like to do, even if your bank account at any given moment may look like it would cover those things.
This is not quite a spherical cow and there is something to be learned here, but really, I'd like to see this with
- non-square-grid cities with highways, public transport, …
- realistic synthetic populations doing non-random destination selection (nobody randomly goes to a supermarket at the other end of a city, after all)
- actual traffic simulation with jams (or at least using real traffic data)
and then evaluate both the energy use and travel times. That being said, doing this kind of thing, e.g. with ActivitySim, even for one real city, is quite a bit of work.
The reality is a lot depends on your economy. A manufacturing and port city will necessarily be very different urban form to a white collar office job city or a beach/lifestyle city full of remote workers. An egalitarian city will be very different from a socially segregated city. Etc.
Cities are also never perfectly efficient because they are always evolving in function and use
You can look at small parts of it there. And sometimes you can't even buy what you're looking at, GMaps API won't hand out public transport trips in some countries. And where you can, it's fairly expensive. (No idea about traffic or people movement data.)
That's terrible as a signal. It's too late for anything, and there's many reasons things get abandoned.
> code maintainability and good architecture don’t have good measurements that we can apply, because it takes months, years even, to notice the effects of bad architecture or of unmaintainable code.
One way of understanding "good" here is "actionable", imho.
No, it's not. And it's the kind of evidence that doesn't help and rather confuse. It's not even clear from the article whether an LLM or a dedicated model were used for this purpose.
Also
> That is, I'm not sure that anyone needs to deploy a new compound in order to wreak havoc - they can save themselves a lot of trouble by just making Sarin or VX, God help us.
We already have toxic nerve agents that are largely available for state actors and possibly available for individuals. If you have decided, as a human, to make great harm, you can already do that.
Moats are obstacles against something you're trying to avoid. It can be competitors coming in, or customers going out. A moat could surround a prison to keep prisoners in. Some companies just choose to treat their customers as prisoners.
Now that's not fair. Matrix gives you plenty of options to be flooded with CSAM or have all your chats become inexplicably unable to ever be decrypted again
reply