I switched to Brave
kevquirk.com
kevquirk.com
I think Google created a "moat" in terms of hyperaccelerating browser development with disproportionate firepower that nobody else could keep up with. And one potential non-terrible use of AI might be diminishing that moat and with it Google's ability to steer the whole web into their ecosystem. So if you want to be an optimist maybe that's a silver lining that will grow with time.
So if you want it to be relevant, you actually do have to use it. Otherwise you can just as well give up and not care at all about the browser monopoly.
A Phoenix, if you will...
I think the last major scandal was AI additions (cuz who is using AI these days? What an awful idea!) that you can now turn off with one click? Personally never saw the AI features presented to me once. Then the one before that I can remember was the Mr. Robot thing that was so long ago it's hard to remember what even happened. I think they installed a add-on that wasn't enabled and did absolutely nothing unless you went looking for it and specifically wanted it to do something? And then they removed it very soon after when nerds overreacted so hard that we're still talking about it 10+ years later?
Chrome: inability to block ads, new "cookie free" (nope they didn't get rid of cookies) ad tracking, monitoring people in incognito mode, the list would goes on for a long while. Brave: Crypto nonsense, all kinds of advertising for their crap everywhere unless you go through many hoops to turn it off. Firefox is one of the few pieces of software I can say hasn't enshitified itself to the point of using something else.
To add to this, how do I turn off all the AI nagging crap in Chrome?
So it still seems like Firefox is the better option.
I started using Phoenix at version 0.3 (compiling the port on my FreeBSD then-daily-driver) and still use Firefox (and Tor Browser) today. I'm not sure what problem(s) people have with it, but it works for me.
(I also use Safari on my Apple systems, to further diversify web browser usage.)
I am apparently getting too old for whatever that threshold is these days.
If you don’t care about browser diversity, and choose to use a Chrome-based browser, that’s part of the collective’s decision. There are literally billions of people just like you, which is why Chrome wins.
You’re trying to act put-upon, but you’re actually supporting the dominant monopoly side. Your apathy is winning, why do you still feel the need to comment? A bit of guilt or cognitive dissonance, perhaps?
The big one is anything to do with video calling — things often work but not as well, or you can voice call but not use video, or something like that. Most of the time the call works well enough, or I use a native app anyway, in which case this isn't a problem, but I suspect this is the thing people are most likely to run into in practice.
The other one is WebUSB, which is useful for certain tools that flash hardware (e.g. keyboards) from the browser. This is rarer, but I still have Chrome around so I can still use these tools. And mostly there's another option anyway, it's just that WebUSB makes things more convenient.
I have heard people complain about Cloudflare, but I've never noticed this. I suspect this is less to do with Chrome/Firefox, and more to do with privacy settings that Firefox makes more accessible. But again, I've never had an issue with Cloudflare myself, so I can't say much about this.
Other than that, I genuinely can't think of the last time I wanted to use a website but couldn't because of Firefox. And even in the above situations, it's rare that I actually run into issues, it's just something I'm aware of as a possible cause if something happens. Most of the time things work perfectly well.
This is an anecdote without a denominator nor a representative sampling.
(https://github.com/wilsonzlin/fastrender this looks so dead...)
You can give away all the insanely expensive base software to build a browser and you'll still get blamed for not encouraging enough competition.
How many organizations and individuals use, and depend on, those services for their livelihood?
It can kill or force technologies.
You can't really replicate that unless you're a trillion dollar company that chooses software defaults on billions of devices and have the world's most visited website.
The CTO at my company recommended Brave in 2019; I figured why not and have found a compelling reason to change.
The "elephant in the room" paragraph actually is making me consider Vivaldi. Its still Chromium, so it will support all my plugins, and I use NextDNS so most of ads will be blocked anyway. And its not like its amazing, but I've just never heard anyone rave of a browser that was particularly efficent either.
Switching to Brave from Firefox due to AI and ethical concerns seems like a lateral move at best if being generous.
I've switched fully to Meta's Muse for all of my research going forward.
Mozilla has been distracted by a million shiny things around them. They've been mismanaged almost criminally and they have changed their terms of service to be much less privacy-oriented than they used to be.
In my humble opinion, Brave gets far too much hate on this site and is actually the best browser made today in terms of open source availability, a focus on privacy and empowerment of the end user, while maximizing site compatibility.
Isn't Brave's main source of revenue serving you ads based on information collected about you from while using their browser?
also this - like Brave being inundated with crypto shit and now AI shit isn't them hopping on every last fad as fast as possible?
it's also wild to me how many people default to citing FireFox when there are open-source, privacy-focused forks like LibreWolf, Tor Browser, and Mullvad Browser out there, all of which blow Brave out of the water for privacy by their own admission on that privacytests.org site (that one of their staff engs owns)
The hate for Brave is some combination of people dredging up issues from very early in their existence and mischaracterizing them as often as not, and folks that insist that it's jammed full of crypto shit when it's very straightforward to either disable or remove it entirely by just using Brave Origin.
I have used all three of the browsers that you happen to mention aside from Firefox, and while I keep them in my back pocket, Brave is my daily driver. I don't tend to visit a huge variety of websites. I usually have JavaScript disabled when I do so, and I have other privacy preserving mechanisms in place besides just the browser I picked.
I'm happy for folks to trudge on with the Firefox engine, but I no longer see Mozilla as a good custodian of it. I do think the privacy-focused forks of it are good, and worthy of significant attention. On Android, I would also recommend both IronFox and Cromite.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure who you'd prefer. If we're pushing Firefox here, I'd strongly recommend folks compare and contrast Brave's policies with Firefox: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#how-is-your-d...
Take special care to read through the section called "To serve relevant content and advertising on Firefox New Tab".
I think this is exactly backwards, they are a business first and all other messaging is marketing to support that end. I recognize there is likely nothing that can be said to change your opinion if you have faith Brave is putting your interests above their own.
If you do compare to the firefox privacy policy, the most notable difference is how specific Mozilla is about what data is collected and how it is used.
In contrast, try to find any detail about the specific information collected by the brave browser and how it is used to serve ads.
Google Chrome is a frog-boiling exercise where they slowly take away freedoms to run, for example, ad-blocking in the browser and they do so under the name of security. They've already tried to push the web integrity initiative. They'll try again.
Mozilla, as I've already pointed out, is criminally mismanaged in the sense of poor allocation of resources towards building a better browser. On top of this, they have brought in a number of executives from Meta that have made a number of changes that erode the privacy of Firefox users. They can't ship any features that are hostile to Google directly because Google is their primary source of funding.
Safari is written by a company that has no vested interest in seeing the web be good enough to replace native apps because that company makes gobs of money being a middleman selling native apps.
Vivaldi is closed source.
LibreWolf, IronFox, WaterFox, Icecat, Cromite, Ungoogled Chromium are all similar in that they are drafting the work of the multinational corporations, but ultimately are volunteer efforts that are sustainable only as long as the volunteers continue to donate their time.
Brave is essentially trying to create a business doing what those privacy-focused browsers are doing. The challenge is they somehow need to monetize without compromising privacy, which has been a continual challenge for every browser manufacturer.
Again, I'm going to say it for the third time in this thread: the version of Brave that I use doesn't collect telemetry or serve ads because I paid for it. I can verify its behavior because it's also open source. Not a single person has responded to this very simple fact.
Chrome and Safari can’t be trusted because the profit model of the parent company is at odds with building a user first browser.
Firefox cannot be trusted because they work on too many unrelated projects.
Open source alternatives cannot be trusted because they don’t try to profit off of users.
Brave is good though, despite having a profit model directly at odds with a privacy first browser and working on many unrelated projects (multiple browser versions, a search engine, and a VPN, a cryptocurrency) even though they are smaller than Mozilla.
The fact that you can pay for a version that doesn’t sell your habits to advertisers goes against the point you are trying to make. Other than Google, every other browser does that by default for free, and even Google offers chromium for free.
We disagree about the facts on this, and it's a waste of time to argue facts, but I do appreciate the discussion!
https://support.brave.app/hc/en-us/articles/360039248271-Gro...
Every time I see mention of "Brave" I'm reminded that Brendan left Mozilla because of his contributions to anti-gay rights causes, and then immediately founded a company called "Brave". In essence, to me, it felt like he was thumbing his nose and saying it was brave to be a homophobe.
So yeah, nah, comparing the moral high ground between Mozilla and quote Brave un-quote is not a compelling argument to me.
Suffering is so often self-induced.
Not everyone wants to be a martyr/activist to change their habits and experience in order to support a political cause they don't really understand.
Most people just want the best, frictionless and most familiar experience to the product they already know and love, which often means a slick and shiny product from a monopolistic anti-consumer company.
I'll accept this as a reasonable excuse for the non-HN crowd.
But the HN crowd should understand the cause. We've all experienced or heard stories of the IE6 monopoly days, and few of us trust Google.
And it's not much of a sacrifice to use Firefox, it's a great browser. Maybe not the best for everybody, but it is the best for some and OK for many/all. Calling yourself a martyr just because you use Firefox for political reasons seems a stretch.
That's who I was referring to. If you want Chrome to not be a monopoly anymore you'll need to convince gen-pop to switch not just part of HN.
>And it's not much of a sacrifice to use Firefox,
It can be. A few of my most visited websites have issues on FF, and Chrome does page translation far better than FF, which is a must-have for me as I live in a foreign country. Then Chrome's "Image lens" AI search is invaluable for my hobby work.
>Calling yourself a martyr just because you use Firefox for political reasons seems a stretch.
Majority of people will dump the new browser the second the find a website that doesn't work well on it. Using it despite that, IS a political statement, that not everyone will make. If you want FF to get more adoption, then you need to acknowledge its weaknesses so that it can fix them, and not bury our heads in the sand and attack its critics.
I use FF with FingerprintResist on, and many things such as WebGL outright disabled, on top of very restrictive DNS blacklist and uBlock Origin, and even despite all of that I find Firefox very usable. I can make online payments and book flights and other such things normally. I rarely, if ever, have to use a clean, stock Firefox profile or fall back to Chromium. On machine at least, Firefox gets a higher Speedometer 3.1 score than Chromium.
I haven't had to do it in a while, but sometimes on mobile Firefox I had to switch to desktop mode to work around issues. But that's an option I have on Firefox I don't have on Chrome, so again I think that's a win.
But what if I want to crank hog?
Not necessarily. Some of us just really don't like using Chromium-based browsers due to usability issues and want to use one that works better for them.
Every time there's a thread about browsers, at least one commenter presents themselves as a self-appointed representative of "the users" and declares what the users really want.
And it's not that these self-appointed representatives are wrong, necessarily, but they tend to say one of two things: either The People want serious privacy and FOSS commitments and no AI, or they want everything smooth and don't care about privacy. And whichever one it is, it's the most obvious thing in the world, according to the person saying it.
Since you're making rude false accusations like that, let me ask you, are you saying most people DON'T want "the best, frictionless and most familiar experience"?
Because I never met anyone who said they wanted a slower jankier less intuitive product than what they used before.
So how was my statement wrong when I said what people want?
>either The People want serious privacy and FOSS commitments
Most people don't care about privacy and FOSS, otherwise Google wouldn't be one of the most valuable companies in the world with some of the most popular products.
To clarify, by "most people" I mean most people in absolute terms, like the ones you when you touch grass, not just those from your HN/tech bubble, those are not "most people".
>Because I never met anyone who said they wanted a slower jankier less intuitive product than what they used before.
Well someone's having big feelings, but this is a straw man, speed and privacy don't have to be mutually exclusive and in practice they aren't for the most part. Users who are casual enough that ad tech telemetry and privacy are mysterious words to them are also not people who are going to note the 0.1% difference in performance that you claim they're prioritizing. Belligerently repeating a just so story based on a flawed framing of trade-offs faced by users doesn't make it more true.
>Most people don't care about privacy and FOSS
Again, this is a just so story, and I think it's just something weird about the vernacular of HN that people are comfortable making claims like this or thinking they can be leveraged to make authoritative judgments. But one person's trust me bro is as good as anothers, and I don't even think it's right that people really are trading privacy for performance and any sort of margin that significant enough to really be noticed. And frankly, if they do notice a performance difference, it's probably because they don't have ad block and if they don't have ad block it's probably because they're using Chrome.
Google actually maintains their market share through a combination of strong user experience and an utterly dominant position as a distributor. Chrome is the default browser on over a billion devices and is advertised and deeply integrated into the ecosystem of the world's most used website. I've said it a million times but if it was just about the inherent quality of the product then Opera would have conquered the world back in 2012.
This mechanism is well understood pretty much anytime software monopolies face legal scrutiny. Microsoft wanted people to believe that Internet explorer was just that much better than the competition, and Google probably wanted the world to believe its search was so much better, which is why it had to be the default option for Apple devices in Europe. But if that was an organic manifestation of consumer preference, it wouldn't have to be maintained with billion dollar arrangements, or hostile ecosystem lockout that came under legal scrutiny.
You can also make requests without being a dick and calling people "self appointed X" just because their viewpoint doesn't match yours. Conversation work better that way.
People want frictionless and familiar experience. But they also want tools where they are not the product (either by having their data sold, or being fed ads, or being captured by enshittificating services because alternative services cannot compete due to artificial barriers, ...). (edit: and I'm not saying that Chromium does that, just showing that "what people want" is not so simplistic)
Can you prove me that this other statement is incorrect? Are you saying that most people DON'T want to not be abused by their tools?
Of course not. The problem is not that your sentence is not true, it is that your sentence is loaded: you just provide one obvious sentence saying "most people love having the benefices of this product", but totally ignore that 1) this product also has disadvantages that people don't like, 2) alternative products provide other set of benefices and disadvantages.
I personally agree with the previous comment: these "most people" arguments are usually very poor, and it does not reflect very well on people who make them. (the fact that "best, frictionless and familiar experiences" is an advantage can be a good point to bring to the conversation, but it is way less simplistic than that (what is "best", what is "familiar", did people did not want browser tabs because it was not familiar, is a monopolistic situation as with IE6 at the time really "frictionless" when it allowed IE6 to not progress or fix bugs, is "open in 0.62 seconds" being better than "open in 0.75 seconds" really matter for the majority of people, ...) and this discussion can easily done in a better way than with the poor "most people want" argument)
I already did before: Google.
>Are you saying that most people DON'T want to not be abused by their tools?
Firsty, most people don't consider themselves as "being abused" when they use Google Chrome instead of FF, otherwise they wouldn't use it voluntarily in such great numbers. That's just a hill HN and techies love to die on that not representative of the majority.
Secondly, most people (outside of tech) either don't even know they are the product, or they don't even care. See facebook, instagram, X, etc as proof.
Simply, people are just making choices and no choice is perfect. They use Google Chrome DESPITE the disadvantages of Google Chrome.
And that is exactly why the argument "people use Google Chrome so Google Chrome cannot have negative consequence" is simplistic.
But more importantly, some of the advantages of Google Chrome only exist because some people are not using Google Chrome. It is not a zero sum game: the best situation is when we have an healthy balance when people are using alternative. The initial comment you answer to did nothing else, just said "me, I use Firefox", it did not even said "everyone should use Firefox".
And the fact that they are not aware of a bad consequence that is bad for them is really not a good argument. In fact, it demonstrates that your logic is flawed: the fact that the majority of people use something does not demonstrate that this product is a good idea. This is the usual race to the bottom: let's enshittify as much as the people can bare. That is just creating a shitty society. Civilisations would be so much better if this mentality did not exist.
I had this conversation so many time before, and it is so simplistic and naive. Can you not just do better?
I never said they do, you're just putting words in my mouth to farm drama and flame bait. Goodbye and good riddance, go flamebate with someone else.
Do you really think that the initial comment has said: "People want the opposite of best, frictionless and most familiar experience"?
That's exactly your logic: the initial comment was simply saying "personally I just prefer to use Firefox". To which you answer "well, people want the best, frictionless and most familiar experience, can you prove me that it is an incorrect sentence".
So, I've simply shown you that this logic is stupid: I've applied the same approach with a slightly different target.
And you ended up concluding that this is a pathetic approach. Well done, you just understood why people don't like your comment.
And, to be perfectly clear, I never said you believe (or you say) that people want to be abused. I'm saying the opposite: we all agree that pretending that is crazy. The same way we all agree that pretending that people don't want the best, frictionless, most familiar experience is stupid.
Edge, chrome, chromium, brave, vivaldi, opera... its all just rebadged chromium.
There's chrome, Firefox, safari.
Also: Tor Browser, Konform Browser, Mullvad Browser
The origins of Chromium come from KHTML which was designed to be embeddable and quite modular. Both Webkit and Blink forks retained that feature and improved it.
Chromium has V8 which is the faster JS engine (so it accommodates crappy bloated webpages better). It achieved HW acceleration early on, it is quite important for video decode. Many webdevs only optimize for Chrome for viewing.
It's not a monopoly if you can build your own with it. This is like saying glibc is a monopoly.
Sure, the forks could choose not to implement whatever Google might come up with, but that's unlikely, I think.
I happen to use both Jellyfind and Searxng, both self-hosted, and Firefox does not struggle with either. The issue is probably elsewhere.
"the elephant in the room" is that this is a scam company.
The idea that you'd ever trust someone with claims of "privacy" when they do that crap is ludicrous.
He, like 52% of voting Californians, in 2008, opposed gay marriage. This was a different time: there were various arguments about "civil unions", concern from religious groups, worries about slippery slopes, etc., but we are passed that now -- he no longer holds this belief, and time has proven those concerns to be ill founded. Nobody should be held in indefinite contempt for political positions they once held. If we can forgive Barack Obama for opposing gay marriage, then we can forgive Brendan Eich. You can say that you like his work without having to have endless caveats about how you don't agree with a political position he took twenty years ago that even he no longer advocates.
Not according to the public record.
But this comment is of a type that I feel we have moved past. Ideological purity tests were always awful. If you want someone to set policy for how marriage should be considered in some context, then Eich is probably not the person to ask to do this.
But on technical matters unrelated to this I fail to see how it has any bearing at all, because his positions (based on indirect evidence) were not outlandish or out of the mainstream at the time.
That being said, I find it odd that you think no one can sincerely hold the position that someone's bigotry was/is abhorrent, however mainstream it was when they were putting money behind it (which is about as direct a piece of evidence that you can get).
I was alive and an adult as of 2008, and I didn't live in California, but I remember this situation. At the time, I was a somewhat naive young libertarian and my thought was that this was a great time to get the government out of the marriage business completely; leave marriage to churches and have the government only involved in the civil union aspect, which more naturally generalizes to gay marriage as well as certain conservatorship relationships or even polyamory, without forcing any cultural or religious shifts. So had I been in California at the time, I might well have voted for this measure, but I do not feel that I was a bigot for this, much less an abhorrent bigot. Since Eich never made and has never made public statements in any direction, we have literally no idea what his actual views on the subject were.
Well neither qualifier requires a consensus view, so there's no correlation here.
Since Google has proven willing to stoop to bad behavior to lend Chromium the impression of superior performance[0] I don't consider subjective performance to be a meaningful benchmark.
As metrics go, I am more concerned with "demonstrable respect for user-agency", a competition in which a browser from the world's largest advertising conglomerate is forbidden entry.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/why-google-took-year...
Edit: I also use it as my mobile browser. I really don't see any problems on their mobile app (iOS)
I'm the same way. Turn off crypto by default (is it these days?) and that's pretty much it.
I like how they host selected Manifest v2 extensions themselves so uBlock Origin latest continues to work and is actively maintained.
Speed of Chromium with privacy focus. Works for me.
I assume you've heard of it, but just in case you haven't: you should try Zen! It's basically Arc, but based on Firefox, open source and, more importantly, actively maintained.
(I need them partly because of Google, as Google has a broken login system. I use GGP at work plus a bunch of work apps that use Google for SSO. But for some products like Maps and YouTube, I use my personal account. Doing that on e.g. Chrome is painful, because every URL opens with whatever is your default login, and whatever I set as the default, it's usually wrong.)
(See also this almost identical conversation: https://phanpy.social/#/fosstodon.org/s/117281195620828803)
It's been 12 years and people are still making a fuss about a dude spending 8k(!) on politics some disagree with.
Incredible. I wish we'd hold other people in higher positions to such a standard.
Brendan refused to apologize for the donation or even to acknowledge that it was wrong. Instead, he doubled down on it, saying in comments posted to this very forum that the gays kept asking for more and more rights, and he wasn't OK with that. It wasn't part of the "previous bargain." Like, "I was OK with them sitting anywhere on the bus, but letting them go to the same schools? That wasn't part of the previous bargain." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15966490
The federal government forced California to change its law. A federal court struck down Prop 8 in 2010. California appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, and lost.
California passed Proposition 3 to strike Proposition 8's changes from its constitution in 2024, by a convincing margin of over 25%. It passed the state legislature with no votes against.
Contrast this with Proposition 8, which exit polls said had the support of 85% of McCain voters and 30% of Obama voters, passing with a margin of less than 5% in 2008.
> California appealed that decision
Proposition 8 proponents appealed that decision after California's AG and governor both said it should be struck down and refused to defend the California constitution for the first time in the state's history, backing the plaintiffs.
It seems like most of their criticisms are a gut feeling of declining quality due to their intentions with AI. I don't love that, but the browser still works for me. What do other people think?
Once I set it up, it's been just a clean, ad-free browser. Based on Little Snitch, which is free on Linux, like Brave Origin, Brave has a clean list of default connections.
While Firefox may be considering shipping Brave shields for ad block, wouldn't Brave be more opposing to Google's monopoly considering it blocks their business model? Firefox is funded by Google and has bad privacy by default. It connects to Google servers when you first set it up.
https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/ironfox-a-new-mull-fork/...
Librewolf has community support as you can see here.
https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/librewolf-firefox-based-...
They don't do anti-recommendations on the pages but you can see the discussion for things on the forum.
Looking at it briefly, their software choices seem mostly sane to me. Not a lot of FOSS, but a lot of non-technical people don't know how to setup FOSS to begin with. Can't really get mad at a site recommending Signal and Syncthing and local LLMs.
I haven't seen privacyguides mentioned since being on HN, and I trust this site more than others. What are people's opinions on it?
This is exactly why I still use Firefox. Brave is good, no doubt. I keep it installed for the blue moons where I want a Chromium browser for something.
But I refuse to contribute to the Chromium monopoly. Every time I use a Chromium browser, I'm telling web developers that its okay to discriminate against other browser engines (Firefox, Safari, Ladybird).
(1) Cannot have multiple bookmarks open as tabs and stay in different location.
(2) History is not actually history. The entries update instead of stay as a record. I honestly cannot understand the decision to make it like this.
(3) A bug that lasted for years. I have thousands of bookmarks and I'm not sure if it's because of that, often when I add bookmarks in firefox, the dropdown menu would freeze. Tried Floorp, same issue. Don't know if they fixed it since I switched.
A few features of Brave that I find special and useful:
(1) Built-in shortcut manager. One useful shortcut I use a lot is opening a new tab right below the current tab (I set it to Ctrl+E).
(2) Containers, like in Firefox. I like to visit websites in temporary containers so that I can keep the history instead of not having it in private tabs.
(3) Brave's Android app blocks YouTube ads very reliably. Sometimes the Morphy app gets blocked by YouTube temporarily and Brave comes in handy. No need to login.
(4) Not a browser feature, but Brave search has improved a lot and often gives better results than google, especially in cases where google censors the results.
I haven’t heard anyone mention it in years besides “the crypto thing in Brave that everyone turns off”
At the end of the day it's basically just a uBlock-Origin preset for chromium, but that's really all I'd want from Brave regardless.
The linked source cites: "...a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8, which called for the banning of same-sex marriage in California, and donations in the amount of $2,100 to Proposition 8 supporter Tom McClintock between 2008 and 2010."
I assume Brendan Eich was already relatively wealthy at the time and that these donations represented a modest fraction of his income. Whatever happened to some nuance in public discourse? How do people who condemn someone’s character so categorically over donations made roughly 18 years ago function in a workplace with diverse opinions,...
... or for that matter, navigate society?
It's also why I avoid almost all social platforms and, if I land on one accidentally, I look at headlines alone--rarely the comments.
Oh! Damn it!
The woke/cancel culture crowd (none of whom knew him personally) went after him with a vengeance in 2014, but there were LGBT and LGBT-allied co-workers of his at the time who were aghast at the outrage. Here are three examples I could find online just now [0][1][2]
[0] https://subfictional.com/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150202162458/http://words.tofu...
[2] https://medium.com/@__davidflanagan/for-the-record-7645a4bf8...
What does that matter? I would expect us to not care about a small minority doing something everyone else does. Not to actively legislate against their right to do it. If anything, this makes it more extreme.
And when you convince somebody with a lie, and they later find out you were lying, you've probably lost them forever. Not smart.
Eich never clarified his position (nor did he retract it nor apologize) so we have literally no idea what aspect of this he supported along with 52% of the population of California.
I'm sure you'll eventually have someone chime in here that the proposition was "misleading" and there were "disinformation campaigns" that resulted in this 52% figure, AKA "doesn't count, we know what the vote 'should have been'." People forget that Obama famously stated "marriage is between a man and a woman" in 2008 (was he lying to appeal to more voters? Possibly, but the fact is he said it). It was a very mainstream opinion at the time.
He very clearly was. He directed DOJ not to defend DOMA Section 3, and it fell in the courts, just like all the civil rights promoters wanted. If he hadn't been elected, it would have taken longer. That's why we forgive him for lying. We aren't stupid.
He also publicly identified as Christian, though he wrote that his parents and grandparents are nonbelievers.
I never claimed otherwise. For that matter, a double digit percentage of people still think that interracial marriage should be forbidden. I'm smart enough to be on the right side of that debate. Eich isn't. Are you?
> Chick-fil A has done their apologies
They never apologized, and they famously kept donating to anti-LGBT political charities after they said they stopped in order to get a restaurant approved in Chicago in 2012.
> What's he got to gain at this point?
Self respect. It's normal to apologize when you've wronged somebody. Not apologizing shows you either think you didn't cause harm or you are too prideful to admit you were wrong.
The sync works really well, and all of the added "features" can be easily disabled.
I also relate to this post: tried to make Firefox my default browser for years, but slowly Brave became my default browser over time due to its adblocking abilities and general speed.
That said, Brave is a bit of a UI mess out of the box, with too many of their unnecessary "features" like their wallet and crypto BAT stuff being shoved at the user.
I think they're slowly realizing that their user base just wants a straightforward adblocking privacy browser though. They released "Brave Origin" recently, which is a paid app on some platforms, but at least cuts out of all the unnecessary baggage.
Drag and drop tiling into the same window instead of having to create a new window sold me a long time ago but I also have tons of other customizations. But then you have the vivaldism where I can't open a new window and drag a link into it because because the start page captures that as a page add. It has some hiccups but in general I love it.
As an example instead of ctrl+n'ing 4 windows side by side and having to add all the additional window padding a new browser window vs tab has, you can sit on amazon or whatever retailer and price compare 4 tabs right next to each other in the same window and there is almost no padding taking up room, etc. It's very clean, you just drag a product tab into the same window and it pops into it as a tiled page that you control separately, and its marked with a highlight. You can tread the tiled page as a new tab, but its much smaller and you have to click it inside of the tab, so it's not something you're going to drive all day long. I'll put 4 products next to each other, read about them then close it or use that tab as my research tab.
Built-in full page screenshotting/exporting way better than Chrome. I haven't used the mail. The sidebar takes getting used to, I use that as a favorite bookmarks bar and look at downloads in it and RSS feeds. Built in vertical tabs I never look at that. Its sync is much better than it was a year ago, I've had no problems, it's not google chrome sync but you just throw a code onto both ends, my android vivaldi doesn't have extensions unfortunately.
It has an insane amount of settings that I spent a few days tweaking and sync between everything, and now I never touch that menu it's frightful. Sometimes I have to edit my right click context menu because Vivaldi decided to move a button under something (hello, close all tabs to the right). But you CAN do it vs other browsers that don't have full UX control and I'm now stuck with Googles (maybe) decision to hide my right-click close tab button under a 2nd dropdown.
It's been basically a chrome experience in that I don't get errors and ever have to use chrome or safari/bingthing basically ever.
I was always a heavy chromium extension user and customizer, never clicked with opera and firefox runs me off by some business decision every few years, burnt me migrating profiles, etc. I may have to hop off the chrome train completely though.
Whatever I pick next will feel ancient without vivaldis drag and drop tab system.
I haven't yet but eventually I'll happily donate $20 to the project. It's the first time I've felt in years like a browser was actually doing something new.
Moving from Firefox to Brave does not help the vicious cycle either.
Um. As a developer who frequently switches between them, it's both. There are animation issues on some of my own stuff that are specific to FF and that I haven't been able to pin down yet. (It's low priority because I'm considering reworking the whole frontend in something other than React anyway and I haven't ruled out this being some state or ref related bug.)
The whole point of initiatives like Interop has been to make browsers' rendering and other functionality more consistent.
Yes I know, it's a tired complaint years after the fact, but if you launch a browser with that system as a core value prop then it should probably taint the leadership team for a good long while.
I use edge sometimes, chrome once in awhile, FF etc.
Never do I use brave ever because one incident I forgot about (not about the founder), and it was good enough reason not to go back.
Hackles.
> Yolo
> Switch to person X software anyway.
This is the most weak double standards i have seen in a while. IF you mock someone for what they did 10 years ago, have the balls to stand by it.
I am still on Vivaldi and instead of switching from Vivaldi to Firefox I gave a try to uBlock Origin Lite and seems to work fine, the UI is much worse than uBO (I am especially missing easy switch to turn it off completely instead of disabling extension in browser settings), but can live with it, as much as I dislike Firefox (using it on mobile though) it's the only alternative I would move to from Vivaldi on desktop
Giving away Brave Origin for free on Linux is just the cherry on top.
Those work now? That's impressive. I used to VPN to some east European country after I couldn't get adblock working.