tigroferoce

I use it as my main browser on Mac and iOS since some time. It's stable enough, but there are _some_ sites that will not work. They are very few, but it happens. When it happens at the end of a long process (maybe registering) it's particularly painful, but in general it works just fine.

The main benefit is that Orion (contrary to Firefox) has a business model. The downside is that it's not open source. They have some explanation on why, but it might be a deal breaker for someone.

Live captions and dubbing can be a game changer for:

- non native speakers - moving away from the english-centric web - impaired people

I second Bitwarden. It works well, and it even has a business model.

You can and you should. There are people that are happy to pay for email, for search, for videos, for news, for music. I don't see why there wouldn't be people happy to pay for a browser.

The idea that software is free is completely wrong and should be something that an organization like Mozilla should combat. If software is free, there can be no privacy, it's as simple as that.

Working at Mozilla should be more than money. $200k/year is more than enough to be happy in most of the world. You don't need to compete on rock stars that must live in San Francisco, and focus on people that are happy with a high paying job and have enough idealism to accept "only" $200k/year.

I mean, you can try the product, sure. And then decide depending on the price. But would invest time into a product that doesn't even a pricing page?

Maybe that instead of protesting against the regulation we should ask the platforms to provide ads-free and algorithm-free service to kids under 16.

> The data on social media harms is mixed at best. We know for a fact fast food, cosmetic ads for girls, are strictly more harmful.

True, but let me remind you that we didn't have conclusive data on smoke harm until the 50s, but this doesn't mean that smoking was not harmful before, nor that we were lacking any clue before coming to a conclusive study.

At the moment we don't have any conclusive study about e-cigarettes, but I'm sure you would never give kids e-cigarettes just because we don't have 30/40 years worth of data.

> This is nothing more than speech control under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children"

This is a bit more complex than this. Kids and adolescents online are targeted with all sort of techniques to leverage their attention in order to make money. I understand the speech control worry, and I agree up to a certain point, but I don't see how ignoring the problem makes it any better. What are the alternatives we have? I'm genuinely asking, not advocating for TINA. I have two kids and I see the effects of social media on them and on their friends.

Keep in mind that this cannot be offloaded to families, for multiple reasons: - many family just don't have enough data or knowledge to make informed decisions - until the network effect is in place, banning your kid from social media while all of their friend are online can be impractical and cruel - parent decisions can affect kids health and overall society outcome; allowing a wrong decision by the parents (because the society doesn't want to handle the problem) would be unfair for the kids and no wise for the society.

As in many aspects of life the best solution is neither white nor black, but a shade of grey, and is far from being perfect. Looking for a perfect solution is a waste of time, resources and unfair for those that are affected in the meanwhile.

I understand the concerns, and probably Australia approach is not the best, but it's also the first. We probably will need a period of adjustments to reach a sound solution.

This should be the first and most important question anyone asks when trying a new product/service. If I don't understant the business model and how much I could be locked-in, I don't even bother wasting 1 minute on the product (I might tray that to get inspiration, but I probably wouldn't use that for anything serious).

You should try Kagi for this experience.

Yes, but it's not common knowledge. The content disaster needs to be wide and strong, so that the impact is not negligible for most of the people.

I believe that we will soon live in a future where the content will be fake by default and we will validate the authenticity by looking at the reputation of the source. Each time we will read, listen, or see a new content we will think "is this coming from a trustworthy source? otherwise I will not believe any single word of this".

In this context, the more fake news/content we see, the better it is, because it will only make the process of getting there fast.

It's Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert

https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car...

There are dialects, but they are more similar to different languages rather than different pronunciations. For instance dialect of Piedmont, my region, are somehow similar to French, because of geography and history.

It's common for people of one area to not understand dialects from a very different area, but the language is one, and you pronounce all the letters (almost, there are some exceptions, but they follow a rule), and if you were to write the dialect you'd write anything you say.

There are many variations on the cadence and on how some words are used, but generally speaking the language is the same everywhere. But then, of course, Italy is a small Country and only a few millions people speak Italian.

I wasn't hinting that one language is better than others, just that it comes very natural to us to read that alphabet. Once you map in your head some signs to some sounds it's almost all there (provided that you know enough English to infer which words are written for enough time to learn the missing signs).

I agree. As an Italian (where you read exactly what you say and you say exactly what you read) it was straightforward to read. I have always wondered why English has so many weird pronunciation exceptions.

I use both kagi and Orion, both on mobile and Mac, and I have to say that there a few bugs. On the other hand, paying for a software and a service feels good.

My only real complain with Orion is that it's not open source. I get the rationale behind, but still I don't like it.

Ah, sorry I spoiled it out. I saw on Reddit and thought it was great (like a lot of other Kagi things).

Keep up the good work!

Solo developer, no ads, no subscription. Take my money! And thanks for writing decent software.

years of experience and iterations

I have no numbers. I remember that it was designed to be very efficient and easy to maintain, but this was before Meta bought it. Things probably changed, and keep in mind that they need to return of the 19B investment in 2014, so they are probably aiming at much more than just covering the costs.

True, but they are a much smaller service. I remember that WhatsApp was designed to be lean and very efficient so that it would run on a small number of servers.

But this it different from a highly profitable service. Let's keep in mind that Meta payed 19B for WhatsApp in 2014. They need a juicy ROI.

I think this is two sided topic:

- on one side there is the increasing number of features in WhatsApp that nobody asked for and that make the experience worse and worse, I agree. Yet, on the other side of the world a 1B people in China use WeChat for so many things beside communicating, so I understand Meta's appetite to become the West WeChat. Still I hate it. - on the other side there is the business model of WhatsApp. Or the complete lack of it. It's 100% unrealistic that a global, always on, high availability, high security service is free. These things are expensive and they need to be monetized.

It's either ads, either fees on extra services they are providing through the app, either a monthly subscription. Now, I think nobody would pay for WhatsApp and they would lose their market immediately if they went that route (for many good reasons). They tried hard to position WhatsApp as WeChat, failing at that (for many good reasons). Ads is the only thing that is left IMO.

I agree for the index, much less for the browser. I'm using Orion since a few months and beside some occasiona bugs I wouldn't ask anything more. If it was open source it would be perfect.

On the index side I agree, I think they are using other people indexes so far, I don't know if they are thinking about building one themselves.

Same for LLM, but I think that there the problem is even worse.

GitHub is about the community. There are others alternatives, more in line with what Mozilla claim to be their view (I'm thinking to GitLab, for instance), but nothing gives you visibility like GitHub.

Sad to see that Mozilla is becoming less and less what they promised to be once Google funding are depleting.

My two cents, as European, is that since we are more and more asking to LLMs for information, it wouldn't be wise to let a foreign country, not even truly democratic, to choose the information we get.

Wouldn't that would imply that Silicon Valley companies collude with governments? That's simply impossib ... oh, wait ...

EU has many issues, but sometimes it pulls nice tricks.

I personally would pay even if the results were _slightly_ worse. But for me they are as good or better than Google.

I also use a lot the assistant, so I'm happy customer so far.

Apple is to blame for many things, but the fact that if whatsapp has access to your contact list you can't start a conversation with any phone number in an easy way is entirely up to them.

This said, it's good to see that apple is slowly adding things so basic that it's baffling they are not there since years.