The concept of a large organization doesn’t even make sense in this model. How do you make decisions? How do you coordinate? What is Google when you have 50,000 individual silos?
Decisions are less costly. When a swe can take 4 days to do what would have cost 6 months, the math of making sure you are doing the right thing before executing goes away.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time, the government can regulate thousands or millions of different types of things at the same time. It doesn’t make sense to say there’s stuff on the Internet that is worse therefore we cannot it should not do anything about it.
> It doesn’t make sense to say there’s stuff on the Internet that is worse therefore we cannot it should not do anything about it.
I don't know where you get that, the discussion is only about the claim that prediction markets are the worst thing on the internet. Multiple things can be bad without being the worst.
What do you mean? The claim was that prediction markets are the worst thing on the internet and I mentioned some things that are worse. What else is there to explain?
That may even be true, but many commenters here are saying these things because they actually happened to them and then they switched off of Firefox because it pissed them off. (Myself included) So when you say this is a comment or narrative it’s the commenters you’re talking to and you’re talking past them in a way that is confusing. I’m telling you that I hated the Firefox changes and I finally turned to another fork. This has nothing to do with a narrative.
This isn’t about a fight between two things. This is about a company that completely refuses to listen to their users and then some random guy on the Internet who says you should deal with their telemetry to somehow fix the problem that in no way relates to the actual problem and no way has evidence that they would take steps to fix the problem either. It’s very prosocial to think that Firefox actually makes changes based on user feedback, but almost none of these features have users been clamoring for, this is totally executive bullshit pushed into the product.
> It’s very prosocial to think that Firefox actually makes changes based on user feedback
Nope, just hopeful, for me anyways. I already intend to migrate friends & family away from it next year, because from a prosocial standpoint they’re going to be more miserable over time as that sub-2% market share starts breaking banking and government sites, and whatever nostalgia I have for olde Firefox has no place in what’s best for those who depend on me. Regardless, I’m still hopeful that somehow concrete numbers might dissuade Firefox from being daft, or I wouldn’t have bothered commenting on this post at all! If they get the memo, then everyone I’m being prosocial towards benefits, and we all get to invest our limited time and energy into something more interesting and useful for the world than switching browsers.
(Yes, I recognize this is an unlikely outcome, no need to try to shoot my hopes out of the sky like a clay pigeon, I’m well aware that their wings are made of melting wax, etc, etc.)
Fine, I'll speak plainly, because your original post was exactly backwards. "Economic losers" in rich countries are those who did not benefit from globalization - think of all the hollowed out Rust Belt towns in the US, smaller villages in France that aren't on major train lines, etc. If anything, immigrants are largely economic winners because they are able to change their situation and go where there is more abundant opportunity.
And that is why these articles get flagged time and again because the existing tech brow pretend they want no politics but what they want is no pushback.
reply