Knowing basically nothing about anything that’s relevant here, so pardon any ignorance, but it does sound to me like anything that moves the US towards a true multi-party system would be a pretty fundamental change?

“Taking” blood does give it another extra sinister tinge over what’s actually happening.

Might be worth reporting a bug against the Snap version? I think there’s usually a “Report a bug” menu entry under “Help” in the menu?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6usx5vS238Y

Wor-chess-ter-shy-'r.

Unrelated because it’s a different problem, but if a website actually disables your right-click, try holding Shift while right-clicking.

Ah I was just wondering, been a while since LWD tried to stir up some Mozilla-related controversy.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/?v=3

Yeah I mean, if people were filing restraining orders against me, I’d certainly take that as a red flag to avoid them 😅

There’s like a 30-year span of 90s kids.

From the point of view of that girl you’re a red flag anyway. But “a menace” works too.

I knew it! Once I suggested this to someone assuming they’re, like me, not a native speaker, and got downvoted to hell. Turned out I was too woke.

I think I’m getting it, I’m just trying to say that I think you’re underestimating how hard it is to fund web browser development.

What incentives does the for-profit (that’s owned by the non-profit) have that a non-profit without a for-profit subsidiary wouldn’t have? Both aren’t able to maximise revenue for shareholders, and both will always have the option to pay their leaders extravagantly.

And as a well-paid programmer, I haven’t been known to donate $100 a year to software projects. As a conservative estimate, let’s say Mozilla could run Firefox at one-fifth the current budget, that would still mean we’d need a million people like you that would continue to do so even if, say, the most-often-voted-for feature request is misinterpreted, or changing a “view all tabs” icon suddenly pisses off a significant portion of them enough to stop their donations.

And even if that happened, it’s not clear that that would necessarily lead to gaining market share on default browsers or ones that get heavily promoted through search engine homepages or shadily bundled with installers. Which would still mean more and more websites would start to ignore it, which would mean web compatibility would continue to get worse and worse.

Ah, that’s the secret? Why didn’t anyone tell me this before?! All this slaving away at my day job, when I could just have built a self-sustaining good product - it’s that easy!

2. ???
3. Profit break-even, somehow?

This is very well-informed, nice job on the research.

Google hasn’t been forbidden from paying Mozilla - yet, at least. They’ve only been ruled a monopolist, but what consequences they will face is yet to be determined, and then the appeals process will follow, so it’ll be a couple of years before there’s any potential impact.

Mozilla has also explicitly tried to have other baskets to put eggs in (Relay. VPN, Monitor Plus, Hubs, etc.), it’s just that none of those have been as successful.

I believe MDN and standards partcipation is part of the Corporation. The latter definitely, because implementation experience matters for that. The former also has its own monetisation, and has a lot of content contributed by the Open Web Docs foundation.

I think it’s mostly the parents of whales who are complaining.