What do you consider an "LLM provider"? Is it a website where you interact with a language model by uploading text or images? That definition might become too broad too quickly. Hard to ban.
the bulk of money comes from enterprise users. Just need to call 500 CEOs from the S&P500 list, and enforce via "cyber data safety" enforcement via SEC or something like that.
everyone will roll over if all large public companies roll over (and they will)
Logseq + Syncthing has been working quite well. Logseq is well maintained, has a fully functional Android app, and a thriving plug-in ecosystem. I have been using the combination for a year and it's an excellent long term solution.
> Mozilla is starting to seriously have a long list of highly questionable if not directly user hostile behaviors.
Would you care to provide examples? I am a longtime user of Mozilla products unfamiliar with the topic and I am genuinely curious.
> What should we think of their VPN they try to promote so much
Mozilla does not have its own service but rather resells Mullvad, one of the most privacy focused services in existence. Is there more to this story that I am unaware of?
Allow me to add this to the other sibling comments: Pocket was an... interesting series of choices.
"""
Mozilla replaced a feature that was end to end encrypted with one that sent private data to a third party for data mining.
They denied getting paid for the integration. That was technically true. They eventually admitted they got paid for referrals.
They bought the company in 2017 and promised to release the source code. They still haven't.
The Pocket website says "as a member of the Firefox family, privacy is paramount."[1] The first part is misleading and the second part is simply false.
Open Sourcing something is never a easy task especially if it calls for a complete rewrite which i assume is why it still has not been open sourced yet
Buying a technology company, they buy a proven idea. If the bought tech has a diffrent stack than everything else Mozilla already had then rewriting it is going to be a good long term idea.
> everyone copy-pastes commands other people wrote straight into the terminal
I know a lot of people that use Linux and not many of them operate this way. Most care about their software sources. "Everyone" is certainly not the case.
And yet when I complained about `curl | sh` on HN the other day, I got ridiculed. "Everyone" is too much, but even on a purportedly "hacker" website, people find the idea of perusing a shell script before executing it preposterous.
Something that's hard to remember, but helps a little: if you get 3 people saying stupid things, that's only 3 people -- not necessarily representative of the people out there.
But `curl | sh` is no less secure. Download this file and execute it. Functionally the same outcome. Tell me how doing that is materially different than `apt get`. Both employ signing and checksums (just with different PKI). One delegates trust to a package maintainer while the other trusts the author directly. I truly don’t understand the paranoia and consider it tinfoil hat security theater.
While I agree with the sentiment that Tesla has wonderful UI/UX, your 10+ step EV-to-ICE comparison is disingenuous. Tesla does not scrape the ice by itself.
