Mozilla Laying Off Around A Quarter Of Their Employees

[lyamc]

the point is that claiming it's a real cryptocurrency when they have the ability to seize funds from people's wallets is fraud. why they do it is irrelevant. the problem is that they can do it.

Why don't you show me where they claim that because I CTRL + F that thing and see nothing that tells me that it's a "real cryptocurrency".

[hotaru]

To prevent fraud

the point is that claiming it's a real cryptocurrency when they have the ability to seize funds from people's wallets is fraud. why they do it is irrelevant. the problem is that they can do it.

[lyamc]

by "scam" I mean that they try to convince people it's a real cryptocurrency, but then they seize tokens from users' wallets.

To prevent fraud

[nazar-pc]

Is WebAssembly properly multi-threaded by default or has limitations like Javascript?

Has limitations, but with latest release of Firefox shared memory is available again, so you can compile to actually multi-threaded output with something like Emscripten.

[aht0]

WebAssembly is even more restricted that regular JS, which is sandboxed. Doesn't make any sense to block it whatsoever.
If you disable random browser features without necessarily knowing what they are and what they do, that doesn't yet mean those features are broken by design.

Is WebAssembly properly multi-threaded by default or has limitations like Javascript?

[_ob1]

Just subscribed, 3€/month.
A bit ashamed it took me so long.

[gbcox]

I'd say Brave already captures that market much better than Mozilla. Which could be a contributing factor in Mozilla's current difficulty.

Jedi hand waving... This trick of providing the funding for Google's "strong competitor" in order to claim that Google isn't a monopoly worked during the Obama administration, but eventually someone is going to see right through this BS. It's still "Ads by Google," whether you're reading them under Firefox or Chrome.

Nobody was fooled by Microsoft selling "PC-DOS" under the IBM front company and "MS-DOS" under their own name, even after changing the names and front end GUI to OS/2 Warp under IBM and Microsoft Windows under their own name.

I don't think Brave or the other clones are going to make much impact. People who were going to install Fx on Windows will continue to do so, Edge will possible affect the decision of those who where going to install Chrome. I touched upon the reason in my previous comment. If people have a dislike or mistrust for Google, that is going to extend to a Chrome clone.

Regarding antitrust... yes, it's still Ads by Google - otherwise why would Google pay for it? But the difference is that by default, Fx blocks alot of that stuff, and people are free to use another search engine. It's in Google's interest to have Fx in the ecosystem. It's not a Jedi mind trick - it's just good business. It proves that they aren't trying to illegally eliminate competition. The analogy to MS/PC Dos is completely apples/oranges. For one, Fx isn't a rebranded version of Chrome.

[ed31337]

The opportunity for Mozilla here is the avenue they are pursuing, which is building upon their reputation for privacy and security and crafting a narrative and offerings that leverage and exploit those differences. Many people don't like ads, but also want to compensate content providers...

I'd say Brave already captures that market much better than Mozilla. Which could be a contributing factor in Mozilla's current difficulty.

Most of all probably Google - and they will keep their existing contract with Mozilla - despite the hand wringing negative hype by the media. It's good business for them to have Google search front and center on Fx, and just as important the monopoly considerations. Being able to point to Mozilla as a strong competitor is a big positive for them.

Jedi hand waving... This trick of providing the funding for Google's "strong competitor" in order to claim that Google isn't a monopoly worked during the Obama administration, but eventually someone is going to see right through this BS. It's still "Ads by Google," whether you're reading them under Firefox or Chrome.

Nobody was fooled by Microsoft selling "PC-DOS" under the IBM front company and "MS-DOS" under their own name, even after changing the names and front end GUI to OS/2 Warp under IBM and Microsoft Windows under their own name.

[chithanh]

That page was outdated and contained both people that haven't been in Mozilla for a while and didn't have people that were already there.

How outdated the page was before doesn't make a difference (ok maybe they did not sacrifice their veeps), because almost all the CxOs are still there, which is the problem here.
A strange coincidence though that this page got updated just days ago after being outdated for so long, and only the Mozilla Corp leadership section was changed, not the Foundation or other parts.

Also that page obviously doesn't contain information about their compensation (or reduction thereof).

I did not complain about the compensation, and neither did the tweet. I actually think that paying staff based on performance is a bad idea because this generally leads to measurement dysfunction[1,2]. A reduction in compensation would placate the public outrage about how much money the CEO makes, but not be the actual change that Mozilla needs.

[1] Alfie Kohn, Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work, Harvard Business Review Sep/Oct 1993, https://hbr.org/1993/09/why-incentive-plans-cannot-work
[2] Robert D. Austin, Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations, Dorset House Publishing 1962

[hotaru]

If any of the browsers today can give me options to disable the bloated features at runtime, I am all for it.
Javascript, Flash, HTML5, they are all just optional to me.

• JavaScript: there are extensions that let you disable it.
• Flash: most modern browsers either don't support it at all or have it disabled by default.
• HTML5: if you want to disable HTML, use a Gopher client instead of a web browser, I guess?