Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | exitheone's commentslogin

That's extremely unlikely. Keeping up with modern browser features takes a very large amount of work.


That’s true but I think most people’s beef is that most of the funding for Mozilla isn’t going to that work. Wethers that’s the case or no I have no idea, but that’s the general sentiment


the CEO's pay in particular seems to have absorbed a large portion of the savings created by layoffs.

cf. Mozilla Firefox Is Dying (2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44939271 and a list of posts from 2024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303736


I would have agreed with you a couple years ago. But a few motivated volunteer developers and some LLMs could do it (possibly along with some moderate community funding).


This trope is so tiring.

There is a massive difference between Google for enterprise customers and Google for consumers.

The consumer offering is massively subsidized by ads and will use your data for ad placement, although they still never sell your data because that would hurt their business.

The Enterprise offering guarantees you contractually that they never touch your data.


> This trope is so tiring.

While I also find it annoying, the alternative of just rolling over and being desensitized to it is much, much worse.

If we're going to be wrong, I'd rather be wrong by being overly cautious than overly trusting.


In this case, they wouldn't touch your data but their AI safety system would also prevent you from accessing it!

What do you think their security model will be trained on? That's right, other people's data.


Where's the line exactly because it's certainly not right after you start paying? How big of a customer do I need to be to not be a 'consumer'?


Except if the authorities anywhere in the world or valuable partners politely ask for it, yeah.


Or if they eventually get "SOTA" AI and it breaks out of it's sandbox trying to do whatever the MBA has told it to do.


I don't think that's necessarily true.

I have spent months on projects that benefit a small subset of a service that's a small dependency of another service that's ultimately only used in emergency/outage situations.

It was absolutely essential for the company to have these systems in place, but I was under no illusion that I'd actually see them used during my time in the team because disasters of the necessary magnitude are rare.

So seeing the user journey and understanding the importance did nothing for my feeling on disconnection from what I'm working on.

So I emphasize with the original poster a lot on this.


Can't wait for the legislation so I can finally be released from servitude to my cat. /s


Array language have been around far longer than any "HN crowd".


Which is totally orthogonal to the original statement, and my reflection to it, which was on one hand statig that seemingly array languages tend to be letter soupy, for which I replied that a selection bias is at play, as array languges are used widely, most notably Matlab is used widely which is not a letter soup. It is simply not regurgulated on the site as it does not seem so hardcore.

Nevertheless you are right, array langueges have been around earlier, for example Matlab itself dates back to the 1970s.

I do not understand the awe some are giving them in the comments, they are an easy to understand paradigm, which is very well suited for certain types of problems. Some having overly terse syntax is a thing, but I do not feel that only geniuses can comprehend array programming, anyone who did learn some university level physics or signal processing has the tools in their belt.


"we" as in "a group of people not in a position to provide any evidence or investigate"?

Yes, absolutely, because all "we" would be adding to the conversation is speculation. No new information can be gained here.


Who said "we" were going to investigate or speculate?

There is a difference between a witch hunt and making sure underheard voices get attention.

I was suggesting "we" make sure these claims are not being ignored because they are against a public figure. The fact they are a public figure and "might get blackmailed all the time" doesn't somehow relieve a person of criticism. That "we" ensure the proper authorities and groups prioritize finding new information or investigate these claims instead of being swept under a rug.


This seems pretty cool!

Question: Does this take into account memory bandwidth and caches between cores? Because getting them wrong can easily make parallel programs slower than sequential ones.


Your link does not pass a smell test in the slightest.

Even the first number he gives ("688,478 Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause Deaths (primarily from the Covid Vaccine)") is complete crackpot fiction and runs counter to the actual current evidence. In fact the very likely reason for this is miscounted/misattributed COVID deaths.

See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38300867/


Honestly, yes, I don't think Microsoft Google and Apple would do something like this.


Imho, the correct way to evaluate corporate potential corporate trust is on self-interest.

In Microsoft, Google, and Apple's cases, they all have substantial enterprise business that would shit a brick if they were caught doing this.

Ergo, it's not in their best interest to do it.

Safer to rely on a company's desire to make money than any sense of "good".


The cost per ad is still astronomically different between search ads and LLMs


There could be an opposite avenue: ad-free Google Premium subscription with AI chat as a crown jewel. An ultimate opportunity to diversify from ad revenue.


There's not enough money in it, as Google's scale.

Especially because the people who'd pay for Premium tend to be the most prized people from an advertiser perspective.

And most people won't pay, under any circumstances, but they will click on ads which make Google money.


The low operating margin of serving a GPT-4 scale model sounds like a compelling explanation for why Google stayed out of it.

But then why did Microsoft put its money behind it? Alphabet's revenue is around $300bn, and Microsoft's is around $210bn which is lower but it is the same order of magnitude.


YouTube does it, at Google scale. And these same people do pay $20/mo for ChatGPT anyway.


YouTube isn't comparable - YouTube revenue is roughly 30B/year, while Search revenue is roughly 175B/year.

Advertisers are willing to pay far more than $20/mo per user, combined with the fact that search costs way less per query than inference.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: