It's pretty simple - for regular users Chrome is faster, has more features, uses less power, and has better website support. It is also aggressively marketed by the largest advertising company on the planet.
It wasn't always this way. For example, FF beat Chrome in battery life until a few years ago, and FF extensions used to be superior in functionality Chrome extensions. Chrome eventually caught up in the few areas they were seriously lagging in, or Firefox shot itself in the foot trying to morph itself into a copy of Chrome (eg. multiprocess architecture, WebExtensions).
Today there is little reason to use any browser other than Chrome / Chromium or Safari (which is still superior on Mac / iOS in a few aspects).
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” Marcus Aurelius
We need to stop trying to enforce "the truth" to other people. Just let people talk and have different opinions. That includes letting people having conservative values, because lately this thought police is getting out of control.
This is generally a sleight of hand where one person's opinions are being referred to as 'facts' while the other's opinions are not. The rabbit hole here goes deeper than most people wish to believe because we're nested so deep into a particular dominant narrative.
If a government body declares that there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19, am I not entitled to evaluate other evidence and conclude that this statement of fact is incorrect?
> Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese investigation team, no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care worker infections have been reported.
No, see, that's a great example of incorrectly mixing the two up on your part. Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19".
Fact: On Jan 5, 2020, the WHO had "no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission".
You can hold the opinion that they should've been more aggressive about the potential of that changing. You can hold the opinion that the WHO should figure out a way to rely less on member nations accurately reporting information to them. As the statement notes, much was unknown to the WHO at that point:
> There is limited information to determine the overall risk of this reported cluster...
> Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19".
So you'd like to be 'entitled to your own set of facts' about how to summarise that WHO post because I am a fallible human, correct?
Would you say that Facebook are composed of infallible humans who never misinterpret the results of dense scientific papers? Or can the human judgement they exercise on complex topics be mistaken?
> So you'd like to be 'entitled to your own set of facts' about how to summarise that WHO post because I am a fallible human, correct?
It is simply not factual that that statement states "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19". It explicitly states otherwise, in fact.
> There is limited information to determine the overall risk of this reported cluster...
And your choice to believe the webpage over me is an (entirely reasonable and wise) exercise in human judgement based on other evidence you have access to.
"Is this organization credible?" is an opinion, that you might back up with various facts.
Right. 100% Agreed.
And that implies that a fact like "On 5 January 2020, the WHO said 'Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese investigation team, no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care worker infections have been reported.' " is based on an opinion like "The WHO's web administration team is credible and would not have misleadingly changed the content of a web page"
Unless you start comparing that fact with other facts as reported the internet archive or a checksum in your database...which also has credibility questions.
---------
I'm just saying "Sadly, there is no way to escape using human judgement somewhere." I suspect we agree on most relevant object-level questions about vaccines and COVID-19.
I realise I sound pedantic. In normal times, I just round 0.9999999999999999999 up to 1 and go on with my life.
There is substantial contemporary reporting of the WHO's statements from January, and the Internet Archive has it snapshotted on Jan 9. http://archive.is/jZByM
No, I'm saying that in order to believe in any facts, you have to exercise some level of human judgement and conclude/assume that the entire world has not conspired to deceive you.
It is wise to exercise judgement in that direction for the same reason it is wise to round 0.9999999999999999999 up to 1
It is often wise to round 0.999 up to 1.
-----
I'm not saying '2+2=5'.
I am saying '2+2=4'. You are saying '2+1.99999999999999999=4'.
Yes, and Facebook as a platform is not a place solely reserved for "facts", one can also post "opinions".
This isn't even a new thing: Op-Eds (i.e. "opinion" and not necessarily "fact") are a common information propagation tool, one that isn't unique to Facebook.
It's funny how the media are saying this kid defending himself from the violent mob is the devil for using self-defense and protecting the city, but at the same time Jacob Blake (who was charged with sexual assault and had a long history of violence) is an angel. We are living 1984. The truth is the opposite of what we are being told. All values are inverted.
The criticism focuses on his actions as a whole, the crowd's, his motivations, and the people praising the killing. Which legal charges stick and which do not are interesting, but using them as a stand-in for morality is a common fallacy employed in irrational political side-taking.
> Which legal charges stick and which do not are interesting, but using them as a stand-in for morality is a common fallacy employed in irrational political side-taking.
Agreed, but morality is in lock step with the law here: the result of the attacks is the moral responsibility of the attackers. Which know isn't Kyle, because we have video evidence from multiple angles of all three attacks.
The part where he took a gun he doesn’t legally own, drove to another state, and inserted himself into a tense situation because he was itching to shoot someone.
He drove 20 minutes. His attackers may have driven for even longer. The law around the long gun is true though, he should have used a handgun for protection.
I could drive 20 minutes and be in Canada, but if I did that and committed several crimes like he did, the fact that I was only 20 minutes from home wouldn’t help me any. And if it looks like I drove those 20 minutes in order to commit a crime, like he did, it would be even worse.
(Used to be able to drive 20 minutes, of course, since Canada won’t let me cross the border for a while)
I don't get it. Is Mozilla a Neo-Marxist organization now?
Why don't you talk about software development instead? About building FireFox? About disrupting tech?
It seems Mozilla is now run by people more interested into communism than actually building a fucking software and bringing value to the world. RIP Mozilla.
Media are endlessly debunking QAnon and PizzaGate, yet no media is investigating things like Epstein network (Mr Clinton traveled like 30 times in the famous island - he must really liked the beach).
I'm pretty sure I've heard plenty about the Epstein network from the mainstream media over the past couple of years. Are you really sure there's no media investigating it?
I literally heard about Clinton palling around with Epstein from the mainstream media. The media has never been shy about reporting anti-Clinton stories.
The media barely looks into the Epstein story details and actively omits large chunks of evidence, such as his and Maxwell's ties to Les Wexner or their ties to domestic/foreign intelligence. As Alexa Acosta said: “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.” There's so much evidence that he was linked to the CIA/Mossad and Epstein was even known to brag about it.
We now know that Harvey Weinstein, who is just a media exec, was able to kill stories for years about him sexual abusing actresses. Is is crazy to think that a intelligence agencies could kill stories about one of their honeypots?
Alpine has replaced situations where I would previously use vanilla JS or jQuery (i.e. simple UI interactivity, but Vue would be overkill), but is far nicer to use.
LiveWire is perfect for things like data tables—it's not really interactive per se, but a full page refresh to change filtering or sorting sucks, and implementing it as a purely JavaScript component makes it harder to use all the cool Laravel stuff I have on the backend. With LiveWire I can just pass in the path to a Blade partial to use as the table row template, and use all the back-end stuff I like.
That just leaves the complex, high interactivity stuff, which I continue to use Vue for.
LiveWire is missing a couple of features that's stopping me using it in production (namely the ability to apply different middleware to different components), but V2 is out soon so hopefully that will include it. If not I'll probably look at contributing it myself.
When I was young, I thought we would have flying cars and all live in peace/harmony by 2020. Guess what? In 2020, we are almost back into the crusades.
Also, there is this nice serie on Netflix about the fall of Constantinople/Istanbul:
