erklik

> I've been using it for some of my work for a few months now, after a multi-year hiatus because it always, no matter which version I installed, slowed to a crawl after a short while of use.

I am surprised to hear this. I had this complaint a few years ago too, but today, I currently have about 105 tabs open right now, all fully loaded and it's running fine. I am running on an Apple Macbook so maybe that's the difference? I run Chrome and similar number of tabs result in my fans turning into jet engines.

> Individual bias: Decisions are made by partners that have bias. Most importantly racial bias. Just 1% of all investments go to black, latino or women.

Would be nice to see some sources for this. Googling it doesn't seem to show anything of the sort so perhaps you did some calculations. Regardless, would be good to see.

> Investor bias: Only a few investors have access to YC.

> Contributions: Not anyone can contribute to YC startups. Just a selected few.

Both of these are something you've stated as "bad" ... why? Why are they bad? Clearly the model works and YC has been very successfull, could it be because of these reasons? I don't know either way, but your website doesn't really explain why these are bad things, just states them as such.

Nonetheless, applause for putting something out there. Bit more info about you would be good. Who are you, what are you bringing to the table, and why should people join you and so on.

> what's between his fingers

The fingers basically always seem to be off in these AI generated images.

> artists want to be treated as artists (with emotion rather than rationality).

That doesn't make any sense. When you treat people with "emotions" ... this is the issue. Emotions are unclear, confusing and are different for everyone. Treating people based on emotions and feelings just results in inequality and confusion for everyone. This the perfect example where if treated it as a rational and business transaction, he would have come out on top. It's his emotions, and the fact that he created some sort of friendship for which he accepted "less" money is his fault. If he treated the issue rationally and sent it to this agent, he would be far happier today.

> I am just a flawed guy, not particularly together, who doesn't have next month's rent.

This comment by him.. seems to be honestly something that explains quite a bit as to where he's coming from.

> There are lots of healthier options that taste almost the same if somebody craves sweetness.

Alright. Don't hesitate to share then. I can't give away my one sugar... would love options to swap with.

All forums eventually devolve discussions into political shots taken at non-existent enemies ala Reddit.. Seems like HackerNews is finally getting there.

> They specifically ban news from US, India and China so they won't dominate the content.

???

India : https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/z3dhr9/meta_...

China : https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/z3datt/uk_ch..., https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/z3fgka/major...

US : https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/z3hoy3/us_ir...

This is just the first page.

> Where is the data sourced from?

https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/public-transpo...

Then they're only talking about Abrahamic religions since largely, genital mutilation isn't a part of Hinduism, Buddhism etc.

> The creators know this and provide an alternate version called Douyin used domestically which optimizes for educational content and has additional rules/safeguards

... Douyin is edited like that out of the goodness of Bytedance's hearts to reduce addiction or is it regulatory pressure?

Reading the article:

> Douyin, much like TikTok, is particularly popular with young audiences, and so China's top regulator, the Cyberspace Administration of China, has urged it to "create a good cyberspace environment for the healthy development of young people".

> Last month, under-18s in China were banned from playing video games during the week, and their play was restricted to just one hour on Fridays, weekends and holidays.

It seems awfully like the China's version of the FTC decided that this ain't cool anymore, and Bytedance saw the hammer of legislation coming so they made changes..

The easiest answer here, is get the US government to not ban TikTok, but make it a rule that under-18s cannot access these applications, content must be educational, and limit screen time by banning these apps during school times, maybe only allowed for 2 hrs on the weekend etc.

However, I do remember hearing a lot that China is a facist dictatorship when these rules were made. I wonder if the same will be said for the US if they decide to make such rules.

I am somewhat confused...

Your point was that pious people, even today, would burn all owned books except the Quran as a show of their faith.

> Sealed time

I can't seem to find this book. Do you have the author for it?

> Regarding the book as holy property, special item: https://sureshemre.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/on-the-late-adop...

This is more about scribes being attached to their jobs so preventing the use of printing-press. That's nothing holy or religion related. Good old protectionism.

> Rest is on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_desecration#Respectful_d...

I am also confused what this has to do with the original statement. Quran as a book has a form of disposal, yes, and it's by burning, sure. Your point was about non-Quranic books.

> And in various scholar articles. Notice that its also a attempt to have cohension and prevent the forming of sects and cults.

Similarly, again, that is about religious texts and religious books.

Honestly, I am not sure where you got your claim from. As far as I can research, there isn't some widespread practice of "tendency for example among pious muslims to burn all books except the quoran at the end of life" ...

Why? It's in Pakistan. The modern country of India didn't exist back then, and nor is the city even located in modern day India.

> There was.. is a tendency for example among pious muslims to burn all books except the quoran at the end of life, to express ones devotion.

Do you have an example of notable examples of this in history? or a source of such events? I've never heard of such a case before, so it's quite interesting.

Add the almost 225 million or so Pakistanis too. About 1.5 billion people I'd say.

> Unless a written record of its name can be found and deciphered, that name will probably endure.

I think this still stands. Even if it has been mentioned, we'll have to find it and decipher. I would argue considering how famous it is in the nation, it'll be real hard to change the name even if the original is found.

> Until we, collectively as a humanity, won't start regularly vetting people in power for the mental disorders, of all types - genetic, old age, chemically induced, regular mental illnesses etc.

Who decides what a mental illness is? .... and back to Square One.

I don't think the point is that they can't. Just far more unlikely to, and there's usually more recourse. Google is mega-corp who never listens to their users, and are un-contactable. Some AI can and probably will ban some people for no real reason and even Google won't know why it happened.

Oh god. I love that you said this. Absolutely. I have 3000 tabs open (exageratting but can't be too far off) and Tree Style Tabs saves my life. Along with Tridactyl, using the browser feels far more "powerful" than Chrome ever did to me.

Just use Firefox. Support a different browser than Chromium

I've commented this before in a different thread. It's time we, developers, truly switched to non-Chromium browsers. It's Firefox. The answer to all this is Firefox.

Firefox is a legitimate alternative, it works for >99% of the world's websites and is an actual alternative i.e. not a fork of Chromium. We need to support Firefox. I've been using it for nearly the last 5 years full-time and have never needed to open Chrome.

Do some Google websites perform worse on Firefox? Sure, but the entire reason that's because people don't use Firefox enough i.e. some websites are worse on Firefox. It's a cycle. People don't use Firefox enough, which is why some websites are not performant on Firefox and so on.

Firefox expanded and became famous because of a large amount of developers telling their families and friends that it's the better browser. Same was the case for Chrome. This needs to happen again.

As a side note, can someone at Mozilla please make it so that I can donate directly to Firefox? Is that not possible for some reason? If I knew that Mozilla wasn't going to spend my money on some stupid new idea, and it would directly to supporting Firefox development, I would defintely pay a subscription each month to Firefox, and feel like a lot of other people would too.

Verification of Identity. That's what these documents are used for. It's also why they're so dangerous.

This is such a lie. There are not "too" many people. Let's look at four nations China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These make up about 40% of the population of the world [1]. If you look at their per capita emissions, China is highest (7.6), India is 1.8, Pakistan is 0.9, and Bangladesh is 0.6.

However, look at the highest numbers on that list and you'll see nations like Qatar at 32.5, Kuwait at 22.0. Yes, Granted, they don't have huge populations so overall, they're not pumping out that much. However, Australia, America, Canada also are emitting >14 tons per capita. The vast majority of these people do not need to be emitting that much but they do so to fuel luxury, and their "standard of living" while telling the people of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China that they need to do better. It's pretty hypocritical.

The top 15% of the world needs to emiting much less. Not the bottom 40%.

Pakistan is an even more interesting example because currently a third of the nation is underwater (literally an inland sea has formed [3]) because of floods that were defintely far more exacerbated this year due to climate change. They're the ones suffering from it (along with good old goverments being incompetent and not planning enough) while they've not benefitted from the emissions in the slightest.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...

2. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods#/media/Fi...

> The audience of HN is unlikely to make a difference here.

The audience of HN and devs in large, are the ones who've contributed to the monopoly of Chrome. Us only testing and creating applications for Chrome led to this.

I never said that people don't make their own choice. Of course they do. My point was that if we are going to complain about Chrome, then Firefox is a perfectly fine alternative and is currently the best way to change GOOG's ways is by voting with our feet.

Would regulation be nice? Sure. I doubt it's coming though so for the moment, our only alternative to not living in a ad-infested hellscape is to use Firefox.

Firefox is a legitimate alternative, it works for >99% of the world's websites and is an actual alternative i.e. not a clone of Chrome. I've been using it for nearly the last 5 years full-time and have never needed to open Chrome. I am not sure how one can pretend otherwise, so no, I don't think just saying it's "bad" and ignoring it as an alternative is viable.

Do some Google websites perform worse on Firefox? Sure, but the entire reason that's because people don't use Firefox enough i.e. some websites are worse on Firefox. You just go around and around. If the audience of HN is not able to make that sacrifice (not use some of the GOOG's website) then we deserve the monopoly of Chrome.

Other than that, I also think we need a third alternative for Browsers. Ladybird is in the news these days, and if you're a dev and care about this issue, we should all be contributing to it.

I agree about your clone comment ala Brave, and so on.

> - What average user side loads apps? That would be like asking to sideload apps on your microwave -- it's just impractical and not the commonplace behavior. I understand this is HN, but still. Sideloading apps is a minor complaint for a minority: Google report recently showed 0.06 of users sideload apps, globally. Paltry.

Does it matter? The capability exists. I can and have downloaded F-Droid and can easily download open-source free-from-Google apps without ever interacting with the Play Store. That's impossible on iPhone. If side-loading doesn't matter, then why doesn't Apple just allow it? Why the big hoopla?

> - If you don't like the Apple browser (Safari) you're more than welcome to use Firefox and Chrome if you'd like and make adjustments to make it the default browser.

Except you can't. Apple forces you to use Safari even if you install Firefox, Chrome etc. It's just reskins, not the actual browser. Safari is the new IE. An old, aging, out-of-date browser existing only so Apple can force their users into the prison of the App Store.

> - They should be allowed to expand on their own OS. Claiming they can't because it "competes" with other apps is just not true, frankly. I think of the recent medications app. Does what most other junk medication apps do in the app store but 100X. Now I don't have to pay $19.99 for a "good" app (which frankly, sucks) I can just use the app Apple has.

In other words, the big mega-corp can destroy competition as long as you don't have to pay $20 and can keep feeding the beast. Apple has stolen the concepts, ideas of apps that are well-loved by consumers, pretending that it's just apps that suck is disingenuous. Apple is not some saviour coming in to create better apps. They're stealing from competition and forcing them out of business.

It's a trillion dollar business, they should not be allowed to constantly destroy perfectly fine businesses. It leads to a crappy, non-competitive market.

Doesn't it? Product A is bad, thus use Product B. That's how most of my problems with different products are solved.

Hoping we're talking about the right "They" ... Why is "people" capitalized?

Regardless, I feel like that's a little too optimistic.

> When considering other quality of life factors, Canberra easily leads the OECD regional index at a sum of 106.74 vs. 82.81 for California, which also scored 10/10 for income.

Although ... Canberra is also incredibly small, boring and barely anything ever happens while California is a cultural hub.

> eating like our grandparent's grandparents

Is there any science showcasing exactly what that was?