Biggest voice according tho whom, you or what. You do not even understand that Chrome is not entirely build by Google. Its a multi all-in-one-application just stitched together by Google, the rest is included or developed by Google because there are no alternatives that you can use or they invented it. No its not admitting. Its how things just work, do you give random stranger your car keys and trust him and then afterwards get accused to manipulate the market because that user wanted to use your car to buy another car. No. Reality is you sit with them on a table, get one hand on the wheel, earn trust and then you can ask and influence form the inside, proving you are worthy. Then you develop standards and people would actually listen. Ignoring them, saying oh they are the devil and mother G is root issue for all the evil in the world, boring ...

when that product and its soft forks nearly have the monopoly on web browsers. Because then it means that Google has the biggest voice in the future directions taken by the web.

It is relevant since the web uses what exist and not what your hopes, dreams and promises stitch together. There is no competition, this is underlying problem, due to lack of funding, govt even advertise organisations because they make deals with them see Microsoft and the Pentagon etc. History here is long, the problem is you influence the web proving something and Mozilla provides nothing. Why use Mozilla, share your data and trust with them and then switch to other apps and providers because you depend on other programs and services anyway, when you can have the all in one package with Google, this is what people in the world care about. It is not practical to depend on 100 apps, and services when you anyway end up sharing data, then better use one provider and that is it. They are just reliable enough and they simply have the user base.

The 1 Percent idealistic people sure as hell do not represent the web. Points you ignore. Web shit out Mozilla in an instant. And no clown fork will help.

5-10 years from now Brave smoked Firefox and it does not surprise me one single bit. They just offer what people want, search, sync .. you name it, vpn, god knows what is not already planned or possible with more support. So you trust one entity and do not rely on 100 others. Mozillas user base will shrink together of people with sentiments and people who invested time and money into project, sadly this will be the end, but not a surprise, ironically without money from mother G they would be already dead in the water .. So you bash the hand that feeds you... cringe

• I already outlined Germanys problem it is the crippled energy network, a network that was not designed for renewables and decentralized solutions. Fossil fuel debate is over as I explained that other things also depend on it, of course you import more and more because demand is higher and higher that does not start with energy and does not only stop with energy. Making transition will also forces you to use fossil sources.
• No one except you talked about coal, that is correct. My proposal does not even mention coal or the relevance since exploiting another resource is not put into consideration.
• You cannot ditch fossil. Since there is no alternatives, you annoy me with your repeatedly copy and paste nonsense.
• Pollution does not exist with wind energy and pollution si human created problem not natural one. This I already linked in multiple threads. Its an industrial problem combined with cities, cars, etc. Not nuclear as nuclear does not itself create pollution, maybe how you mine uranium, if we put all into consideration but that is all. My model is also not about co2 and pollution since none of my mentioned stuff produce per-se any pollution, only once to establish them which is acceptable.
• Time gamble can fail, I already mentioned it. Its dangerous to think every problem can be solved. The fossil topic cannot be solved and never will be solved. As practical everything you create, t-shirts, toothpaste depends one way or another on oil. Creating chemical alternatives also only shit the problem, you still need to use - something. And most resources are limited one way or another.
• We can ditch nuclear perfectly, there is no statistics that contradicts that, the provided and mentioned statistics here are based mainly on coal, again no one talked coal. Those presented statistics also put not several things into consideration, like growth and demand as well as money factors, they are usually on CO2 ... Which is pointless since you compare that against coal yet again. Wind is not coal. They are also written my american, USA gives less shit about renewables than Germany or for that matter EU.

Discussion is over since I now repeat myself again and again. I have no interest in talking about semantics, it is irrelevant if its 20, 30 or 100 years the outcome will be the same, faster .. slower ... irrelevant in the big context.

already a process that’s happening naturally that will do the same thing without the worst side effects.

My proposal is not about natural selection. It addresses overpopulation, which is a problem, if there is no further growth or not is not the question, it is about maintaining the status quo because people are not willingly to sacrifice something, which this thread clearly demonstrated ... I want more kids I want this ... no but I this and that ... hard reality is when you confronted with past action that clearly showed there is a problem, ignore it and continue like nothing happened....

Glad you know how our population in the future will look like, will quote you in 10 years when we hit 10B with no end in sight as history showed us that we usually continue and not stop. But we will see who has last word here. Not much into speculation.

The video is also not about engines and what engine someone should use, if you argue on this you do not understand the underlying problem. The engine is to render the content, based on APIs and other things. This has nothing to do with monopolies. As everyone could theoretically create their own standards but you need funding, money and that typically only comes from those who have the money. So this is the underlying point.

Your math and numbers are just incorrect as you refuse to accept that the Browser is not one big project, it is more a multi media all-in-one project and there are others involved, this you do not understand, as you clearly displayed.

I admit nothing I say how things are and if you pump 1 billion into it you should get the voice, this is just normal and Mozilla does the same, as they have also the last word on what pull request they integrate. This is normal and not something essential that has something to do with control, you cannot just give random people commit rights, there must always be a review process. If you want a sit on the table you need to pay you way into it, this is just how this works, and with only words, hopes and dreams you will simply get a lower voice. It is like saying oh I know better than elon musk, but he actually spend 3 billions to sit on the twitter table, so of course he calls more shots than you, this is why the government needs to fund projects and not advertise organisations.

Your refusal to accept that there is no Mozilla fork while there is in mass successfully forks such as Brave, Vivaldi and so many others... is just cringe. Mozilla has only clown forks that make no impact on the web as they are mainly run by sentimental people and not actually people who develop standards, pump their money into it and this is when your logic miserably fails.

• Can I see mozillas youtube competition
• Can I see mozillas vpn, whops its mullvad and only after pressure after years of outcry from the community
• Can I see their email service to compete against gmail
• Can I see ads alternatives..
• Can I see ...

There is nothing and people care only about what you can take... This is how web works .. not with hopes, dreams and blah... funding, proposal, review, frameworks, alternatives and documentation... You simply INVEST into something and then you can spread it for the mass. Google did that with success, provided free services, advertised it and gained control. Things Mozilla missed, instead they run in Googles shadow, behind, too late, slow ... incompetent. I blame the CEO actually he is as incompetent as Microsofts CEO but they are in a much better positions that allows more mistakes.

We are now on an off-topic level. Since I am not here to explain the science behind my proposal, I only clearly say we need to fund those projects more, use the money for it and not for nuclear and make the transition better now than later.

However, I will address some things here.

I actually saw her video, she is into science and involved into such topics. So, she is at least are more credible source then the typically YouTuber who stitches something together and thinks that this is reality. She usually makes her homework and she admitted struggling with the video, because its a delicate and complex problem. Hands down, this is not solvable anytime soon, I think 10, 20, 30 years. She mention older problems going back to the 80s when this idea started to gain more attraction because cold war problematic and the first actual research was done on a bigger scale outlining possible problems, that is important as it shows the history and the progression we made. Since then science evolved, we got better methods and it is close to finally run in the real world. This is important to mention. There are like with every tech problems, and it usually takes decades to fix, I mention it because this is key essence of my proposal. Use the time now and not later. The faster you start on researching into alternatives to more time you have to perfect the process.

I give her points that she tries to explain the fusion reactor problems that actually exist, they are more or less correct, the numbers she mention or the underlying math is subject to another thread as this is controversial topic on its own, some say so others say other numbers and there are several systems with different outcomes, tokamak, iter and other systems work a bit different and their efficiency depends on various variables. It should be noted that those systems are TEST reactors, not the ones actually for mass producing energy, they are examples to test the math and the idea. Those are used to test the theory, final solution might look different based on how the outcome of those tests will be.

I am absolutely not downplaying that there are still problems with fusion, the more I say we need to pump more money into research to get this finally running.

I am not here debating numbers, because they might change with further improvements.

I think she outlined also the same as I said

• Resources are limited
• We need to check on what research we invest into
• Marketing is bad, btw on both ends - Fusion as well as Nuclear - on both ends they typically play with useless numbers to make it look better than it actually - currently - is. I am not really going to debate this as this is pointless since no fusion is actually running 24 - 7 so those numbers and marketing is purely made by hopes, dreams and promises. Not to mention that when you change some variables you get other numbers. As she correctly mention q total vs q plasma.
• My proposal directly mention that we should use wind, water etc more that are secure, even if there is a disaster, I typically plan with disasters and destruction on put this into consideration already. It is easier to rebuild than invest into an uncertain system with no end solution. The argumentation against this point of my proposal is something I cannot agree into, as nuclear is not a time stretcher because you shift problems and it did not helped the climate, we still have the issues, and I clearly outline that fusion is also not a end solution but it possible solves one problem to research into other problems that need to be solved. The difference here is that you do not store atomic bombs under your table, fusion energy radiation is ENTIRELY gone within 60-100 years, this is acceptable and more realistic to predict. Meaning I take this anytime over atomic waste that needs to be stored so long that governments will fundamentally change and the politics until then will also change fundamentally. Fusion simply, even if now imperfect simply provides a bigger opportunity in terms of long term planing, as the process can be improved over time and the risks are here much much less and more acceptable, the burden here is way less than with nuclear.

Another problem that is not even mentioned is - false positives. Assuming you are involved or witness of a crime scene and come close to suspects the police will investigate you, your connections and friends and everyone who is connected to you, they might block your friends flight, close their accounts to avoid that someone escapes or go to other places easily .. even if you did nothing wrong.

I always tell the same old boring story but it really happened.

There was like 16 years ago now someone who did crime and they froze me on the airport only because I was his friend, points out he was not the one who actually did the crime but they froze me and cancelled my flight only based on conjecture because their impression was that I maybe was accomplish of him who tries to get into another country in order to escape, only wanted to visit my mom was around X-Mas. And you typically do not hear such stories in the echo chamber media and I am sure as hell not the only one who made such experience.

It was humiliating, they threaded me like I did a crime and they even checked the toilet like I can escape trough the vents .. it was ridiculous.

• Thorium as well as molten salt still need to be feed with fresh material, you gain max 1000 years, this is already calculated you still run out and the more reactors you create the faster those 1000 years will shrink. Compensating is not possible.
• You still produce waste.
• You still have downsides, lots of them, linked them multiple times already.
• Nuclear war is already at risk with Ukraine, the risk is not theoretically, it is actually real threat and even if there is no Ukraine, the next political conflict will come so or so.
• If nuclear fallout happen then you have other problems to worry about than climate. This is then only the cherry on top.
• I do not argue human life here, with no one. Better .. when is it better .. when 1 dies ... 10, 100.. when is enough enough. Nuclear killed thousands of people, there is not even a statistic on how many people die alone of mining the uranium that causes cancer. Maybe 5000k+- and how many will die in next years when next reactors blow up and how will climate respond when you pump in waste water back into ocean and claim is all clean, secure ... unpredictable...

Nuclear is mass suicide supported by Trump voter, same misguided people.

The point is that the disasters getting worse not better. I have an entire community for fusion, I do not need videos, I in general give shits about videos.

Will monitor the news when the next disaster occurs if you volunteer going into the death trap to help when the next reactor got hit my the next tsunami.

No supporter will then open his mouth... or volunteer... you can count on it...

I choose none of it because diasters will happen with nuclear energy or not, what you change is once the next tsunami hit the next nuclear power plant that you deliberately risk peoples live on a gamble so that you can continue to do whatever you do best, exploiting the earth and their resources and think you can win a prize with this strategy. You can and will always lose with this kind of thinking.

History showed that Nuclear Power plants do not reduce or keep the climate how it is, we got overall +2C since we use nuclear, within 60-100 years climate changed that much, with and without nuclear. Nuclear power plants will not stop the growth and the demand and you numbers are in general too high. 6C in net 100 years is unrealistic.

You can use the nuclear material from atomic bombs, use this as a middle ground to get rid of it, of course the waste issue will continue to exist when the music stops playing but it would be more efficient than using it as threat.

Once green systems are in place, it is overall cheaper for the consumer. I could post what I would pay for nuclear ... numbers are rising each year not sinking btw .. and then what I pay for green energy ... numbers are falling each year.

It’s the other way around. Which browser you use is what directly determines whether monopoly and private companies develop the standard you use.

No it is not, this is a myth. As you also can use free software on closed OS, which happens to be the standard. Keyword Microsoft and Windows. You also can choose to not support this, it is you and not the monopoly. If there is no alternative that is usable, people continue to use what they got. It is the underlying problem, Firefox is so bad and so unusable by default, so people switch or use something else. Nothing to do with Monopoly. The standards itself are created and dictated by monopolies, so it plays no role what you use if it anyway ends up that you must support such standards.

You could write a standard independently of those companies, but then if everyone chooses to use browser engines from companies that don’t follow it, what’s the point?

The point is that user generated or govt establish frameworks can b used as basis.Its useless if you build a browser surrounded by standards created by Microsoft, IBM etc alone.

If everyone uses a particular browser then whatever that browser implements becomes the standard. It’s all about what browser you use.

This is already the case, you can choose not to use FLoC. Nothing changes here.

If what you want is everyone using the same basis, then what you need is to get everyone to use the same browser engine (which is what is happening already).

Please learn the difference between Browser engine and web standards, nonsense you talk here. Your Browser engine can adopt, implement or reject standards. Irrelevant in dyding discussion anyway since you provide absolute no solutions yourself in the discussion here, like everyone else people feeding off my ideas, practical in every thread. That you cannot continue is clear, web gives a shit about Mozilla, clearly the case. Some people hold together by hopes and delusions do not represent the web. Never did.

The discussion here is not about Browser you use, as people use whatever works best for them, and not what implements xyz, this is clearly shown in practical every thread. So enforcing your ideas will not work for the mass, better way around is to create open frameworks, documents that are actually usable and directly easily reviewable because at the end of the day your Browser runs pretty much on Android and iOS and not a open system. There exist open alternatives but they are not well funded, future unclear and the web - the main user - does not use it, they trust big corpos, they rely on their eco-system. Like Mozilla relies on money from yahoo, google etc in the past. Corpos you shit-talk.

It is silly to store the waste under your table and expect nothing will happen in 100k years. Fusion already was running, short but it was. Silly is to pump and waste money instead of pushing fusion.

I was not once wrong in this thread. It will happen, no need to be an einstein, next disaster will come....

• Your independence renders useless if Apple blocks your app.
• There is no competition, F-Droid is for example not an replacement, no books, no paid model etc.
• Engine is no - terrible for the web - standards are dictated by Microsoft, IBM, Google
• Google invests their money into standards, so they get a higher voice, if you do not like it you create your own, govt failed here to establish something to encourage people doing that

Current projection is towards 10 billion+ people.

Not an iOS simp but not much Browser have dark mode on iOS. Afaik Password sync across multiple devices is unique on iOS.

Not a bad release I would say. 1.35 and 1.34 was the trash on iOS from just reading the changelog.

If it cannot exist without squeezing money out of people and generally being abusive, it should not exist.

Wishful thinking, this would be in a Star Trek world, believe me I also want such a world too but reality is people are selfish, egoistic, ignorant and god knows what... The whole NFT thing showed us clearly, to name one example ... this is what the web cares about .... not idealism or good faith and wishes...

Lets assume you are disabled, your only option is to make money over the web ... what then .. so your logic here cannot be applied, you want that this person starves to death rather than make some cash or what ...

Everything has downsides, always..

That is why funding and help is essential, this must come from above to at least provide people with opportunities and a guidance beyond ... oh better use x than y.

So you say we should give up on independent journalism and only let bots on Google news post important infos. I mention Google news to provoke because Mozilla has no own news network that comes close. I am not even telling something new here, the own community came up with ideas for social networks, email systems, news systems - not pocket btw, vpn systems, etc pp. Things Google successfully established. There are also drawbacks like Google+ but you cannot always win. You need to know when its best to review you options and cut things when they become a burden.

I’m saying the web as it is should burn.

..... impressive solution....

Those examples are rare examples and are not the standard. Even Martin Brinkman with 150k+ clicks a day had to gave up and sell his page. You cannot pay your bills with hopes and dreams and you cannot expect someone to produce lots of articles when no one supports you.

It already exists and has as long as the web has been around.

Yop, some pages no one heard of it, or pages with 1 post per year like Stallman.org or what. In meantime Google news spits out 100 news a second that actually impact the web and not your 10 clicks a day page.

Totally from another planet dude, cringe. Had to laugh at your bs...

No one here talked about germany and coal. No one. Germany invested more than france or US for renewables. Coal is not renewable. Nice try tho.

We need both long term solutions and transition planning. I don’t know why you keep mentioning that nuclear is not the long term solution, as I never said it was

What you smoke man, nuclear already runs for 50+ years now as transition and it did not helped, you think creating more nuclear energies is the solution while ignoring nasty downsides, how many people you think dies for mining the uranium. No mentioning in any statistics ....

In the time that you wait for the research results, you still need to produce energy. Nuclear is better than fossils in that regards, especially consider the climatic emergency.

In the time you create more nuclear plants you can create easy peasy wind and off-shore systems. Planning nuclear power plant and when it goes online is typically according to Wikipoopia a process that takes 10-17 years. In that time you can create thousands of wind parks. Your logic is fundamentally broken, as I clearly outlined that the waste problem cannot be solved, you trade one problem for another, entirely bed on time, which is dangerous, possible also risk human life because the next tsunami will come in the meantime.

So what we just stop using electricity until we can have enough renewable production? But no, you said yourself we should go on with tech and even planes, so not that either.

We just need to stop building more power plants and create wind, water etc systems. Its that simple. Tech allows you to combine multiple solutions.

• Climate change will not be solved with nuclear.
• Climate change will also not be solved with renewables.
• Betting mainly on winning time is a high gamble, once you hit a specific line there is no turning back and some problems can maybe never be solved.

Wishful thinking does not win a price, if it would be up to be I would declare monopiles illegal establish world piece in a blink but this is not realistic.

Reality is that people tend to take open source, never donate, and that is it, when the project dies because no one supports it, they go to the next project and the process repeats itself. Only bigger projects without real competition getting attention and funding.

How many bloggers and smaller projects went broke because no one helped, instead you see ... oh f#ck it I bypass your paywall, adblock you to death to ensure you never dare again that you make some buck on my behalf. This is what people really think. There are exceptions but typically people trying to enforce their own believes and opinions on others and this reflects funding. Oh you use ads, f-u not on my watch friend ... and this is what people actually do in the real world.

For example I cannot sponsor lemmy monthly as they do not accept BAT system as donation option and I find it complicated to setup bitcoin to do that, so I let it go. Its that simple, I have no bad intention but for me its more effort and more complicated so I let it go, does not mean I have no good faith or I am not willingly to help when I can, so I help spreading the word but overall when it comes to money people consider twice to support you or not.

Even bigger pages like new york times are forced to go with paywalls because they slowly dying because lack of support, how f#ed up is that. Open web, starts with funding. Otherwise you only help those who have enough money to sit it out, which is google, or in that example google news and why should people help randoms that bleed to death, because they end up anyway on the same big pages once the competition is gone.

THere are three solutions

• Coin system
• Ads - Paywall, traditional ad revenue etc.
• Merch and funding .. merch to pretend you give something in return to animate people to help and let them feel more comfy....

.. and that is pretty much it, one time donations, well sure, can happen but you need to pay your bills monthly.

Thanks, captain Hindsight. But once you see you have not yet invested enough in renewable, you should not ditch nuclear that quickly in favor of more coal.

No one mentioned coal here, did I nope. I mentioned multiple times, wind , water etc. Glad you ignored everything.

When did I say anything in favor of raising the number of nuclear plants? Once again again, I talk about keeping it steady until we get rid of fuel-based energy production.

The demand is not stead it goes up and you need to compensate. We already produce lots of renewable energy. Only US is pro Nuclear because Billy G and their marketing videos that you can drink uranium. Downplaying every disaster on youtube. Grotesque.

Production and research are two different things. We need to research for cleaner energy, but we still need to produce energy in the meantime.

I already covered research in the opener. Your logic is nonsense as you can use the money you waste for nuclear graveyard that you could put into research and fusion as well as upgrading the old energy network. I already said that, thanks for ignoring to make no point.

We need both long term solutions and transition planning. I don’t know why you keep mentioning that nuclear is not the long term solution, as I never said it was

We had 50+ years as transition already and we did not enough, no we need to act now, latest study proves me right. NOW is what counts, not in 100 years. People here claim nuclear is an answer, read the comments. Just above, such as ... oh you support climate disasters because you do not like nuclear.

I am afraid this is incorrect open source has massive funding issue. The reality vs what you theoretically could do are different things, usually only bigger projects getting lots of funding and donations.

The web is also basically just one big ad. Yt, lemmy, everyone practical only advocates and advertise a website, link, info whatever. So yes you need actual solutions, getting rid of ads and replace it with donations never works. Starts here with the fact that people copy and paste entire paywalled content on the website because they refuse to support websites just because they want money for the content. People want everything free and not help, always was the case and always will be the case because its too easy to bypass systems.

the web is being shaped after Chrome and cousins’ capabilities.

Because there is no competition. I already explained, people use what they can use and you cannot expect that people code their own frameworks.

If the commit are counted for employees, that means they committed with their professionnal adress, hence in the context of their work, hence directly representing the corpo.

Commits do not reflect the entire work, as a committer can commit work based on someone else, which means they can include in their commit the zlib code to provide support into the Browser. You cannot give a random user commit rights.

No, the statistics was based on a list of commits that includes one-time contributors.

Again commits include also work from third-party projects. It says nothing about the influence also again no bug bountry work that only getting merged by official approved committer. Apparently you do not understand how Chrome development works.

Irrelevant, external lib’s devs don’t decide anything, the coders still decide how their import and use the lib.

It is relevant, if there are no alternatives you can include you code your own, which is what you accuse Google off with sabotaging the web. No alternatives, you are forced to provide your own. It is that simple. Was the case with QUIC.

Who are the Chromium people? The Chromium projects is an entity that was created by Google, is their any sign that it is run by people who don’t work for Google?

Not every employee represents the Corp. You can work for Google but you are not dictated by them, so your - every employee must kneel thing - never happen. Typically new standards are in depth in discussion with the community as well as the proposals are clearly visible. People as well as chromium users can decide and act up on the information. There is no secret meeting, of we want to destroy the web or what you accuse google off. They implement of course third-party projects from others if its reliable and usable. Most what I refer too are average people, ex employee, bug hunters, free volunteers, etc. Its also mentioned in the Chromium blog.

Mozilla is so irrelevant that no one talks here about them, instead we talk about your misinterpretation on who gets commit rights, and who does the actual work.

I am not even going into some details that a Browser is not the only application, yet this point is also not mentioned in the Video, Spotify etc they all are based on frameworks, there was at that time not much alternatives to those frameworks. Alternatives are often created only afterwords to address shortcomings.

They have a higher voice but you, if you want to still can reject their decision. The drama about manifestv3 was also more echo chamber, vivaldi, brave and others ditched it so adblockers still work. Yet no one has, as of a today a solution. People only come up with, remove ads ... end. This is not what developers or content creators want, they want practical solution without compromising something and ads is simply reliable system. There are also other things that play a role for such decisions, malware etc. Points that some people just ignore. Most people see it from their own perspective and not from developer or content creator perspective. I do not need it or want it ... okay f# it its bloatware or shit ... this is basically how every discussion is about it.

If you pay for development you of course should automatically get a higher voice in your own project and Chrome is simply - theirs. This does not change the underlying truth that you can fork Chromium, adjust it and are finished. If you check the fork history of what people made of Mozilla, there is practical no one from impact, not even Pale Moon as they limit several things drastically. The rest are clown forks with 2 changes ... calling it hardened and independent even if its not because you rely on Mozilla and that is it, not even mention Mozillas failed attempt on Mobile OS and their crippled mobile browser....

Again if govt would provide alternatives as base or fund independent projects by independent people and not rely on others the situation would be better. Then monopolies had a much harder time to compete.

What I meant, and that’s also in the video, is that if Chromium decides to not implement a feature, but other browsers do, website devs are just going to ignore it because most users won’t be able to use that feature.

Nope because for some removed things there are practical no alternatives available that you could use. Awareness and reliability is a huge factor.

What do you mean? Mozilla-owned alternative to Google analytics? What does it have to do with the visitor’s browser?

Removing everything without providing alternatives is a key point why people leaving because promises alone are worth nothing if you do not act up on it. People just do not care if there is a logo with google or mozilla, as long as they have something in their hand they can use for their websites. Instead you see paypal and others doing something which they overlook, deliberately or not, plays no role.

Volunteers can contribute, yet in 2019 more than 90% of commits were done by Google employees. More than 80% of contributors work for Google. So yes, it is controlled by Google

No, since employees from Google are not direct representatives for the Corpo. The main Browser is still based on Chrome. It does not change anything that free volunteers maintaining issue tickets, reviewing things etc. your statistic does not include bounty hunters and such people, because no one put them into statistics because they usually do not do this on a regular basis. The external libaries included are also very often not coming from Chrome, there are also libs included coded by others. Also not in any statistic. So no Google does not control the outcome. It is up to you what you implement, and up to Chromium people decide what they accept as trustworthy or not because they only release the open parts, and everyone can inspect them, this is not in Googles control. What they can control directly is only Chrome but what has this to do with Mozilla or Firefox or the overall web, right nothing. Sometimes Google also create their own stuff because they simply invent it or there is no practical alternative that they could implement. I just say this for the reference, QUIC for example.

The web uses that what is reliable, usually open source and gets maintained. If there are no frameworks available no one can code alternatives tools, so that is the underlying problem. There is simply no competition as the govt also only depend on organisations instead of coming with their own stuff, because it is cheaper to let other people do the work than providing your own frameworks and solutions.

• I explained in-depth now, across several threads that nuclear provides no solution over the long run, there is nothing to debate.
• My solutions are sure as hell not impossible, they need effort from everyone. Your claim is based on nothing. Everyone can do little things, put solar cells on their roof and all such little things.
• I provided real insights, links and I am not the one who posts memes here, that is you.
• There is in general no debate with nuclear people possible, as you clearly display here.
• I am not self righteous, I provided a long term solution that will so or so come in place as depleting resources comes to an end, building more plants will just speedup the process, waste money, pile the trash even higher and the next tsunami will prove me right.

Nuclear people are just incredible low minded in general, you bring arguments forward like that uranium runs out in 130 years and even then they refuse to accept reality.

Opinions from nuclear supporter are so incredible weak and delusional and so far from reality that its grotesque. We had nuclear for 50+ years now, it did not worked out and in the meantime we wasted resources and opportunities in mass to build better and more secure future.

The problem with Chromium-based browser making up such a big market share is that it is more important for the developers that their websites be compatible with Chrome than with the open standards.

No, the problem is that Mozilla provides no alternatives, or for that matter the government fails to provide any competition that are open. As the govt also uses the same dirt, Windows, Google etc. If there are no alternatives for developers they go with what the mainstream use. Can you point to Mozillas solution to Google analytics ... oh snap ... wait ... There is in this case not even a proposal for a transparent solution, therefore people go with reliable and trusted systems that are proven to be effective. I like to add that some governments even make it worse as they advocate organisations instead of providing their own open alternatives which can corrupt. Better approach is to give people a basis and then they can adjust it if needed but we all should get a standard basis as common ground that defines the web and not the other way around that google, mozilla dictate what you should use - according to them. This is a huge difference.

For ads only reliable solution is bitcoin, something that Mozilla used to gain donation with, until recent controversy but provided nothing to support developers, only Brave created a system, of course it is not perfect but they try at least to break the circle.

Yes but in the end, Google can decide what it keeps in or out of the main branch.

No, because the video refers to Chromium in my example, that is independent project, which specifically exclude some controversial things. Chromium is controlled and mainly used by free volunteers based on Chrome from mostly normal people. Besides it does not matter as you can fork and modify everything as you want which is not the case with chrome as parts are not even fully open, the best example was the RILID, which Mozilla now copied years later and call it dltoken, difference here only is that Chromes collection was closed source while Mozillas implementation is open source, still does not change the outcome.

At the end they do the same BS google does. Makes it not better if closed or open. As the end user also do not get the last saying on such delicate topics and implementations.

I do not give much about YT videos, I already expressed it, YT and Wikipedia are not sources, they are stitch something together based on actual sources and those sources are books and scientific research. So link the research not a video switched together by a clown.

Since you love YT crap I have some videos too

• Why nuclear is terrible
• Overpopulation
• How long will Uranium last
• Why does Germany hat nuclear so much
• Why nuclear war is a huge thing
• Nuclear is not a climate solution
• Countries with nukes

Pointless, you see, as I present videos, there are same amount of counter videos claiming the opposite, Yt is by no means any credible source, especially not from clown youtubers.

We had viruses before covid, we will continue to have new ones, man made, or natural bottom line here is there will be new ones, unpredictable. You cannot predict all possible outcomes, it is not like in a marvel movie. What we learned from Fukushima was, you cannot control and predict all nature based events and disasters but there will be some... END.

Right ideas, can I see your proposal. This thread is my idea and proposal that can work if we all supporting it as fundamental ground.

Further climate catastrophe... there always will be the next catastrophe, I think you are delusional how thinks actually on earth work, there always will be an earthquake, volcano etc. This is why I highly suggest getting rid of nuclear energy because the next shit will happen and you measure it on worst case scenarios and not hopes and dreams. Next tsunami will come, with or without our influence and the next power plant will blow up like popcorn and there is nothing you can do, which is the entire basis for my proposal.

The govt needs to support those changes to make it more attractive and not advertise, oh you can sip nuclear waste like mother milk. You need to change things now, we had enough time, now we are running out and nuclear did not solved anything at all, even time is not an argument here since we barely created alternatives in the time, those solutions are as old as humans we only improved it.

You and your maxists I give no shit about politician direction or philosophy we need to do this together, everyone.

It is a team effort sure thing, mentioned already. I care more than most people here cause I have solar, wind and other stuff on my roof since 25 years.

• Selfish
• Does not get the bigger picture, everyone must sacrifice something and give up some comfort. The price you pay for a bigger goal.
• I am not pro global warming as wind energy does not create co2 emissions.
• It is a difference if you fight with nuclear weapons in your back pocket or a kitchen knife, see the difference ... War is never useful, everyone should know that.
• Rapist do not need uranium based weapons, also not guns to do the crime...

You tried, you failed you are selfish... Average Human.

Point is that I am pro tech and I see tech as possible compromise in my proposal. Undermining my opinion based on what xyx says would only result that my proposal becomes less efficient. My framework is more realistic than storing trash under your kids table, backup up by scientists not sponsored by Microsoft.

I trust scientists that they do their homework, not youtubers cherry picking what they think is reality.

Does not change underlying thing that those YouTubers are very often not the actual scientists and you find to every paper counter papers claiming the world is wrong and they are right.

Does not scale, I can counter your video with 100 other videos, leads to nothing ... The discussion is here about fundamentals not what X says because the topic is my solution and not solution from youtuber z.

There is old stuff there which is one of the reasons grapheneos does not directly deliver their apps trough the store, there are many other reasons, you quickly find the reddit thread to that.

I do not need to defend nor shit-talk f-droid, someone else did that for me already, just check my community I linked the f-droid article myself + wrote my own article about f-droid insecurity.

Stock typically comes with more preinstalled apps, does not scale, the comparison is also lacking since power users quickly can disable those background apps, that people often love to call bloatware. Again knowledge is everything as you can quickly tweaks aosp pretty easily and also get very solid OS.

You can also isolate apps with third-party apps that you even can get from F-Droid, island etc. there plenty.. Once again you show knwoledge is key, not the OS.

You are delusional I find you 20 apps within seconds that got their last update in 2018.

• Govt gets their data from energy industry who typically pay for so-called research, Microsoft for example is pro nuclear. So the govt typically tend to listen to them much more.
• I am not interested in guessing, or time, as said its a game about semantics, does not matter if we talk 10, 20 100 years the end result is my point. India plans new power plants, recently announced. My research from Nigeria is thin, as I am not interested that much in the country, I know people from India so my interest is higher here.
• The child policy is something I am willingly to debate, 3 kids maybe but no more. There could be a compromise for cities and housing. I do agree that e.g. in africa this might be critical but overall there should be done. Its about resource management.The govt could give a reward, money for example to encourage it.
• Your US example lacks as US gives so far less about renewables than EU, already linked + mentioned. Again Microsoft - US + China - supports pro nuclear. And presidents in US history are not known to be the smartest in general, hands down. #dontlookup
• If everyone gets rid of all weapons I do not see why this is not a nice long term goal, we should start the process better now than later.

shows a lack of imagination for what’s possible. Planes are awful, period, every part of their use as mass-transit is inefficient and subsidized no matter how cool it all is. Trains are cheaper and more efficient for mass transportation. Wherever you may live there are no trains, but there’s a reason people in China and Japan use them so often.

AHH no I am with you on this one, I am also pro tech. Not getting rid of everything and back to stone age policy.

I take almost no YouPoop video serious in serious discussion, as you find millions of - opinions - not research or something for and against everything. Irrelevant especially then when no timestamps, scientific research or sources are mentioned in those videos.