XLE

There's some inherent value of having competing companies trying make their Smart Stick an option on any TV. Amazon is more likely to sue, I don't know, Samsung if their TVs forced you to log into a Samsung account before using the Amazon stick. The average consumer sure won't be able to sue.

(I don't know how restrictive smart TVs are, though, and at this point I'm afraid to find out.)

If that's the case, isn't it strange Mozilla is shuffling their funds to a different for-profit subsidiary to build a different product?

Why is Mozilla using their money to build a free product, in partnership with a company that appears to have enough money for itself?

DeepSet raised $44 million in venture capital funding. It should be able to fund the project themselves, like how Google funds Firefox.

Meanwhile, Mozilla has promised $65 million total, for numerous AI projects and AI advocacy... stuff... and that funding has probably already spread pretty thin with dozens of beneficiaries.

The thread Rekall linked shows me defending Waterfox, a more ethical Firefox fork, getting browser-based (read: fast) ad blocking installed and enabled by default.

Brave does suck, and this is a much better article about why IMO: https://thelibre.news/no-really-dont-use-brave/

What are people supposed to see? That you nitpicked my statements, accused me of not addressing every nitpick, and when I finally did... You decided to leave and then continue the argument here (not addressed to me but specifically complaining about that detail)?

Seems way more like you're just dredging up days-old personal drama disguised as a callout post.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Brave and its bigotry and unethical practices, and that extends to every company that engages in the same.

Because if something is optional, people may want to opt out of funding it.

MZLA is being tasked with developing this enterprise AI software, and even with the money coming from the outside, I don't see any feasible way it won't distract from Thunderbird development unless a whole bunch of new employees get hired to work in this separate software. Do you?

You linked to me praising Waterfox, which is a Firefox fork, for blocking ads by default with a method that's faster than with extensions.

I listed six sponsored things people will see on a new Firefox installation, things you admitted you don't see because you run a "heavily customized" copy of it. You can claim I don't know what I'm talking about, but things don't stop being ads just because you ~~don't see~~ don't mind them.

Mozilla is burning donation money on this entry into an already full market, it hooks into cloud models, and at best (if you download one instead) you'll be left with a wrapper around a closed-source binary made by a Big Tech corporation.

Don't donate to Mozilla, because this is where Mozilla donations go. Google funds Firefox, donations (to MZLA) fund Thunderbird. Mozilla Foundation funds get sunk into this.

You can't name anyone who asked for this thing that Mozilla is burning money on? Noted.

Don't be so quick to confidently name names, then. Including with the weird "karma" accusation you tried throwing at me.

You ignored the first half of my statement. Noted.

To the second half: show me where they asked Mozilla to spend money on it before Mozilla did. Otherwise you misinterpreted what I wrote.

FaceDeer, don't act dumb. You clearly went into both threads to attack and name-call anybody who doesn't criticize AI under your ill-defined, ever-shifting standards. So your attacks ended up contradictory and hypocritical.

And now you're here to defend Mozilla waste by suggesting there are people who totally wanted it. (Are they in the room with you right now?)

Facedeer, posting two contradictory things is not "having an opinon." It is trolling.

You should try having an opinion, and even sticking to the topic (addressing Mozilla's waste instead of bloviating about some vague virtue of the right to speech ). It would be so much more interesting.