I cannot ultimately make all my decisions based on angry-ex-reddit-moderators-with-axes-to-grind’s comments.
Is your contention that more of mozilla’s funding should come from google? Do you use a chromium browser? I hardly see how you’re helping by trying to shame me for doing something I believe helps the world a teensy bit.
@TrickDacy No, my contention is that if Mozilla wants people to contribute to their cause, they shouldn’t stomp on the people that support their cause.
Otherwise, other people can support whatever their new cause is - since it isn’t compatible with what their stated cause is.
PS: No I don’t use a Chromium browser. Shockingly, I still care about the open web.
@TrickDacy@InternetCitizen2 That would seem to excuse a lot of damage - “locking up these protesters isn’t perfect, but it is good”, “removing these bike lanes isn’t perfect, but it is good”, “polluting in this river isn’t perfect, but the chemicals we are selling is good”.
I don’t really think this sentiment works very well at all when defending things getting worse - I think people generally want to say that a modest improvement is better than none.
@TrickDacy I think people use this phrase to say that even if something isn’t perfect, it’s better than before - that is coming from my reading of the phrase on Wikipedia: “The phrase suggests that achieving absolute perfection may be impossible, and that the pursuit of perfection should not prevent someone from recognizing or completing work that is imperfect yet still valuable.”
@TrickDacy In the case of AI, we are going from a good place to a worse one.
If the AI in Firefox is “the good”, what is the “perfect”? More AI?
Maybe we need to agree that there is a version of Firefox with AI that is perfect before we can then agree that the implementation isn’t perfect (but is good).
uh, what? The good is firefox today, the perfect would be some non existent browser which is fully open source and has no ethical or associative concerns whatsoever.
No one said anything about AI but you, and I’ve no idea why you brought it up. Not really looking to debate whether or not FF is perfect as that’s a pretty ludicrous idea that I clearly never believed or articulated. The entire point I was making is that it’s not perfect but it’s better than chrome, ethically.
Two reasons:
Is your contention that more of mozilla’s funding should come from google? Do you use a chromium browser? I hardly see how you’re helping by trying to shame me for doing something I believe helps the world a teensy bit.
@TrickDacy No, my contention is that if Mozilla wants people to contribute to their cause, they shouldn’t stomp on the people that support their cause.
Otherwise, other people can support whatever their new cause is - since it isn’t compatible with what their stated cause is.
PS: No I don’t use a Chromium browser. Shockingly, I still care about the open web.
Alright then. FYI, This sounds much more reasonable (especially in tone) than that first comment.
That is your first mistake. Many lemms live to do that. Particularly in the
.mlside.Yeah it’s pretty much the fundamental problem with society, if you get down to it.
And to be fair I don’t think they are wrong when they act that way. I understand. I also feel it is counter productive.
@TrickDacy @InternetCitizen2 That would seem to excuse a lot of damage - “locking up these protesters isn’t perfect, but it is good”, “removing these bike lanes isn’t perfect, but it is good”, “polluting in this river isn’t perfect, but the chemicals we are selling is good”.
I don’t really think this sentiment works very well at all when defending things getting worse - I think people generally want to say that a modest improvement is better than none.
Is making things worse better than not?
I think this is a very willful misinterpretation of that phrase and it’s not really something I can take seriously.
@TrickDacy I think people use this phrase to say that even if something isn’t perfect, it’s better than before - that is coming from my reading of the phrase on Wikipedia: “The phrase suggests that achieving absolute perfection may be impossible, and that the pursuit of perfection should not prevent someone from recognizing or completing work that is imperfect yet still valuable.”
If you don’t agree, I guess we can start there.
1/2
@TrickDacy In the case of AI, we are going from a good place to a worse one.
If the AI in Firefox is “the good”, what is the “perfect”? More AI?
Maybe we need to agree that there is a version of Firefox with AI that is perfect before we can then agree that the implementation isn’t perfect (but is good).
uh, what? The good is firefox today, the perfect would be some non existent browser which is fully open source and has no ethical or associative concerns whatsoever.
No one said anything about AI but you, and I’ve no idea why you brought it up. Not really looking to debate whether or not FF is perfect as that’s a pretty ludicrous idea that I clearly never believed or articulated. The entire point I was making is that it’s not perfect but it’s better than chrome, ethically.
@TrickDacy Sorry, I missed the context here and my comment didn’t make much sense.
Removing the dumb comments and sorry for wasting your time.