Mozilla downplaying Firefox, moving into A.I.

Is it really surprising for a big company like Mozilla to look at where the hype is (AI) ? good or bad that's another question, the future will tell.
Firefox being put aside by Mozilla is an interpretation from the author, sometimes Lunduke has a high tendency to make things more dramatic than they actually are. It's been a while since I read/watch him but I can definitely feel his style in those lines, but he's right on one thing about Mozilla, the finances.

PS:
It is nice to see you back in the forums grahamperrin
 
gotnull said:
… sometimes Lunduke has a high tendency to make things more dramatic than they actually are. …
Click to expand...

Yep. His perception of "two options" is an exciting oversimplification.

Mozilla not portraying Firefox as a focus area, in the linked blog post, is no particular surprise; it's a twenty-five year look ahead.

blog.mozilla.org

Making the impossible possible — again | The Mozilla Blog

Looking ahead at Mozilla’s next quarter century In the world of tech, some challenges can feel impossible to solve. That was the feeling many of us had 2
blog.mozilla.org blog.mozilla.org
 
Perhaps Mozilla caught the Bud Light flu.
One can stay with a static version of Firefox, but in short order many web sites will block access to "down level" browsers.
 
Comedy • Gaming • News • Science & Tech
Click to expand...
He leads with Comedy and Gaming so I guess writing about web browsers is not top of his list and that makes what he writes about questionable.

That said, it's also possible that the things listed on their roadmap are money makers and the browser is not. Or at least not as much.
 
My last sentence contains one instance of the word "google" and at the end of the post the phrase "chromium/chrome". All on topic and relevant to "Mozilla downplaying Firefox...".

I thought it was quite clearly worded.
 
Mozilla are political. The thread subject is "Mozilla downplaying Firefox..."

Go to their website and spend less than an hour reading and you will see exactly why. Mozilla made it fully political a long time ago. There was a time where you could say that their only political agenda was in taking on the MSIE monopoly.

Nowadays there is the chromium/blink monopoly, which Mozilla have utterly failed to challenge. It seems that if you get enough money from google, you'll focus on other crap.
 
I just read an article (by Andrew Potter in The Line) how among other changes we see today, cheap AI will affect us in ways we don't expect and don't want. I want to be optimistic but I'm not so sure.
 
smithi said:
what's a "woke crowd"?
Click to expand...

Brace yourselves. Via <https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query="woke+crowd"&cat=web>:

Why I’m Not Woke | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

Maybe we can broaden the definition of “woke” to include these characteristics from both sides of the political spectrum, but until then I remain contently un-woke.
www.thecrimson.com www.thecrimson.com

cmda.org

The Psychology of Wokeness

The cultural phenomenon known as "wokeness" is grounded in human pride, and it is expressed through moral absolutism, moral grandstanding and the will to control.
cmda.org cmda.org

… and so on.

Hint: the so-called "GB News" is not, as it claims to be, Britain's new channel. <https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gb-news-uk-bias/>
 
There are basically two possible approaches to A.I.:
  • make the A.I. more elaborate, and/or
  • make the people more stupid,
and both seem to prosper quite well currently.

Anyway, if I understand this all correctly, then Mozilla is basically a funnel through which Google can finance certain biased political campaigns - which would be impossible for a publicly listed company as Alphabet is. One can think this a way of money-laundering - and that's fine, because all the rich people do it.

For a long time already I am wondering what these big internet shops are streering to. I recently subsumed here in another article what is immediately visible nowadays:

PMc said:
Today, development points to a planetscope monoculture of intellect. We have no specialized bookstores anymore; even the witches buy their books from amazon. We have no yard-sales anymore where you could meet the neighbours; this is now on ebay. We have the same shops in all cities around the world: mcdonalds, marks+spencer, pizzahut, ... We have big corps knowing what is good for us, better than we do, and we have governments that align with these. We are no longer allowed to live without being 'online', and we have security measures everywhere to protect us from the dangers of life.
Does this look sane or healthy to anybody?
Click to expand...

There is a background to that, and please excuse me for telling a personal story: I had my encounters with the marxists early-on, and while I agree with most of their criticism, I do not with their approaches. So when the Internet became ready, I considered Karl Marx outdated and the bug fixed. The bug, meaning the criticism of Marx, that only those with abundant capital could do anything, could run a shop and then enslave the others as labourers, or run a newspaper or a tv-station. Now, it needs only a webpage to run a newspaper or tv-station, and apparently it also needs only a webpage to create a really big company.
But then, strange as it is, things repeated themselves, and the all-powerful big rich corporations created themselves afresh, out of nothing. It seems that people simply DO NOT WANT to be freed from capitalism, DO NOT WANT to manage their crap on their own, but instead WANT to be ruled by capitalists.

Now, while there are occasional complaints that what we currently have is a means of turbo-capitalism which may not really be the best of means, there is no longer any serious consideration that marxism/communism might be viable in any way.
However, marxism has a couple of "side-orders", which are not the main agenda, but which are somehow dialectically derived from the main agenda: matters like racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc.etc.

So here we are. Marxism itself is no longer of interest -people can now hunger, they can starve, they live in precarious circomstances, and nobody gives a damn- but it's side-orders have become an omnipresent fetish, a new religion, with witch-hunts. torture and prosecution celebrated all-along.

So here we are, with the new domini-canes, aka suprema congregatio sanctae, aka the woke crowd.
Now call me a conspiracy theorist, but how does this look like: on one side we have a concentration to extremely powerful monopoly corporations executing turbo-capitalism, on the other side we have the new inquisition keeping the masses checked and controlled (because everybody find something to confess in room 101) and entertained by witch-hunts. And if anybody dares to complain about the one side or the other side, we can immediately point out that all this perfectly engages "social justice", and anybody who would oppose that is certainly a right-wing reactionary, or worse.
Isn't that perfectly crafted?
 
grahamperrin said:
Brace yourselves. Via <https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query="woke+crowd"&cat=web>:
Click to expand...

Bizarre in the extreme. Here we have "The Australian" and allied newspapers owned by the American Murdoch family, more recently also Sky News TV with Fox Sports, likewise, whose far right views often bang on about "the woke".

So those referring to a "woke crowd" are already declaring a political position opposed to those supporting being:

"aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"
--- Merriam-Webster

grahamperrin said:
… and so on.

Hint: the so-called "GB News" is not, as it claims to be, Britain's new channel. <https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gb-news-uk-bias/>
Click to expand...

There's a lot of it about ...
 
smithi said:
So those referring to a "woke crowd" are already declaring a political position opposed to those supporting being:

"aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"
--- Merriam-Webster
Click to expand...

No, that's certainly not my position. In my view the "woke" agenda is a nice little distraction, this why corporations virtue signal support for it - it's the bed fellow of "cancel culture". Forget about rampant capitalism, endless conflict due to proxy wars that we certainly haven't seen the end of, poverty and the fact that we're destroying the planet...
 
Well, it's actually simple:
  1. join the crowd. You're safe in the crowd -and only there- because you can hide in the crowd and nobody can hold you responsible for your opinions.
  2. tune into the slogan of the crowd and repeat it. It's something simple, like: "four legs good, two legs bad". It needs to be simple, so that even the most stupid can repeat it. And it needs to make clear who the enemy is: the enemy is always somebody outside of the crowd.
  3. feel superior. Know that you as part of the crowd belong to the elite and are more advanced than the outsiders who are inferior human beings.
That's all. That's the principal building scheme for religions, ideologies, sects, holy wars and all the like.
 
smithi said:
Bizarre in the extreme. Here we have "The Australian" and allied newspapers owned by the American Murdoch family, more recently also Sky News TV with Fox Sports, likewise, whose far right views often bang on about "the woke".
Click to expand...
And so? Is something automatically wrong when some far-right folks do it?
Fancily, some far left (specifically: marxists) seem to come to similar conclusions.

Also, if it is indeed the case that only some far-right and a few far-left seem to promote personal freedom and peace, and all the others agree that personal freedom must be done away with, and war is to pursue, then I might assume there are a few more things to worry about than only the far right.
 
My hot take on this that if it used to take 5 hours to compile www/firefox on a decent CPU, we should be bracing ourselves for 10-hour compilation times on same CPU in the future. Why? All this thinking that the computer tries to do for you - it's kind of resource-greedy. It's extra code to compile, extra things to use CPU cycles on. To top it off, the powerful metal we need to run AI stuff properly - it does need cooling... and the datacenters behind AI searches are actually competing with farms and cities for drinking water.
 
Shhhhhh astyle ..... ;) Is a known secret that datacenters; especially those used by HPC labs or house Supercomputers, eat 25-50% of a near city clean water YEARLY.

FYI is not only OpenAI (Oak Ridge National Lab, Los Alamos, Argonne, __insert_new_datacenter housing a supercomputer) eat water in boatloads, so they can lower/replace the temp of the heated water in the pipes all around the datacenter used to cool the nodes.

Thankfully I'm on it!!! :sssh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top