HN user
Citizenship doesn't affect things. Place of residence does. If he lived in the US (or other non-EU country), then there's no way to claim any EU jurisdiction. (In this specific case: it looks like he does live in the UK.)
Similarly for GDPR, it's not much use for anyone living in the US, even if they have EU citizenship, if they sign up for services while in the US.
15-20 years is exactly the same timeframe that most of Europe uses for railway planning. That includes things like HS2 in the UK, the Berlin-Munich high speed rail project, LGV Rhin-Rhone, the new Gotthard tunnel, etc.
The main difference is that this planning is done much further in advance (although at least the UK is well behind in terms of rail capacity construction - the UK and the US have many similarities in terms of government incompetence).
Only place that is faster is China, but they work on a different scale.
It can also induce diarrhoea. And taking substances for performance enhancement is essentially doping (as in: not permitted for most sports).
Seriously though, that city is SO dirty and smelly. The public infrastructure is not only bad and falling apart, but politics is sufficiently broken that very little is likely to be done about it. (Same for housing and homelessness: politics is completely broken, don't expect much to improve in this department.)
And yes, it's a huge techie bubble. In a bad way - most people there are completely detached from any "normal life" perspective. But then again, the same can be said for those in politics in SF.
No, it doesn't. (Except for perhaps UK and Canada.)
That's only true if you live in a place with an unsustainable market, i.e. permanently growing rents and house prices. There are places with stable house and rental prices, and in those - buying tends to be a worse choice financially.
And many would argue that places with skyrocketing property prices are going to run into significant issues in the future (if they aren't already at breaking point, hi bay area).
Took them long enough, glad they're becoming a bit braver (almost like Brave :p).
Any plans for desktop though...? After all, desktop seems to be the main platform for Mozilla.
Feel free to go to Switzerland and change the law if you think so. You are perfectly free to try and get the consitution changed, as long as you can convince 100'000 citizens to agree with you.
As it stands: yes, the laws do work. It's not common for private households to be inspected, but farms do get inspected, and eventually shut down for repeatedly flouting such laws. If someone were to report you (i.e. private household) for similar violations you would likely get a police+vet visit and your pets would be confiscated (and you would carry the costs of that, in addition to being fined). Do it often enough and there would eventually be a criminal case.
"US incomes are far higher than French incomes, and especially if we're comparing eg NYC vs Paris"
A common assumption that americans get wrong: this isn't the case. (Taxes might affect things a bit, but that doesn't take into account the healthcare and retirement situation.)
Yes, it loads all tabs at startup. That's not a good thing, starting chrom[e/ium] on my old laptop is not a very fast experience, even on my work machines it takes a while.
Well, there are things like the US prison system, US telecommunications, US military industry, etc., etc., that would give you lots of good results.
That comment could've been written without executing any Javascript.
// Edit: heh, someone already said the same.
Anything on BA is unpleasant though.
First class on the United 747 was a fairly pleasant experience. You could tell it was an old plane, but the seat comfort was amazing and the view (in rows 1/2) was even better. And also the quietest flight I've experienced (except for takeoff/landing since you're right over the nosewheel). Slightly small toilets for first class, but other than that an overall great experience.
The 787 and 777 suffer from airlines using terrible seats in economy, which the A330/340/350/380 generally don't suffer from, but if you're flying premium economy or better the A350/787 are equally good, and the other aircraft aren't far behind.
Inroads on Android? Got data on that? As much as I love Focus, it's irrelevant in terms of marketshare (and it's also just webkit/chrome under the hood). And Firefox for Android marketshare was going down ever since Mozilla shelved developing it. And Firefox for iOS is neutered thanks to Apple's policies.
How much money does DuckDuckGo have to offer Mozilla? Mozilla do ask for quite a chunk of money when selling traffic (/users).
Except on Mobile. (Let's ignore Firefox iOS since that's really just webkit with a better UI.)
Either Mozilla know something I don't, or they're sticking with a sinking ship and forgot to jump to the robust ship that was launched quite a few years back.
Gecko already runs on iOS, I just don't know what the exact build process is. The trouble is, a browser is much more than an engine, and why would people sink effort into an unreleasable product.
To me the UX is a major plus in FF on Android (albeit with plenty of rough edges in the more hidden features). But yeah, no investment in mobile performance sucks (but hey, they spent hundred of eng months on making desktop not suck, so yay I guess?).
Focus is chrome with a different skin and ads blocked. Literally, it's WebView which is Chrome.
Citations for "cutting how much they were going to pay"?
Mozilla revenue is up, they're making a LOT of profit, and the Yahoo deal was supposed to be 5 years so they're not likely to be losing money by switching to Google: https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-revenue-jump-fuels-its-fir...
Mozilla don't really care about mobile. The (too) small mobile teams do care, but the company as a whole doesn't - which mostly explains why it's so rough.
Ambitious in a technical sense - yes. But not ambitious in a "protect the users" sense (see e.g. tracking protection/ad blocking), and also not ambitious in a business sense (i.e. try to do something beyond sell users/traffic to the highest bidding search engine).
(Perhaps they could have made money by selling devices with the OS, but that didn't seem to be the aim there, as far as devices being only sold by partners.)
This is very much the stereotypical engineer approach: trying to engineer your way into revenue. Yes you need strong technology to keep users, but there's a lot more to business than the tech stack and quality.
If Mozilla fold, you could still use chromium. Effectively no privacy difference between chromium and firefox tbh. (Unless you use tracking protection in private browsing, but extensions let you do the same in chromium.)
This gives us a lot more freedom of choice when making decisions about what and how to make money.
I'd argue the opposite. Mozilla seem too scared to try anything substantial because they're scared of losing the money they do get (because they aren't actively going after other sources and not trying to grow into new revenue sources). Think of e.g. tracking protection - Apple are the ones actually making moves there, not Mozilla. I wonder why...