They dont have any negotiating power -> it is a race to the bottom

On other websitrs those are not real users, but bots. Bots that track each mention of a keyword (nowadays can analyse posts too).

I wonder if Dang has any tools to deal with that.

> In herd, everything is immutable unless declared with var

So basucally everything is var?

I'm not sure if I understand the question?

There are two ways to define a variable binding:

    x = 1; // declares x as immutable
    var y = 2; // declares y as mutable

The "default" behaviour (if no keyword is used) is to define a new immutable variable.

I'm asking if the reality wouldn't be that "everything" is set as mutable by default and the non mutable part is ignored.

In the programs I write probably about 80-90% of variables are immutable, and I think this probably corresponds to most other code. Except in certain domains and programming styles, not that much stuff tends to need mutability.

This is why the syntax "encourages" immutability by making it the easiest option (similar to e.g. Rust, F#). On the other hand, if it was an extra keyword nobody would use it (e.g. like Java).

And we cant own our phones due to that?

Of course you can have that.

The governments can ban this feature and ban companies from selling devices with that.

People who are reaponsible for Android all use Google phones. They dont care about android. They dont use it. They dont understand their use cases.

If you are hired by a manufacturer of say cola, you cannot drink the competition cola.

Those in google laugh when asked to show their phones - and then show iphones. In any other business they would be terminated.

I don't know how it works at Google, but unless they're giving away Pixel phones for free to their employees (or at a very, very strong discount), they have no business forcing their employees to use their products.

Here is how a job works: worker works, company gives money. Workers do whatever the fuck they want with the money they earn.

I think an edit is in order, as your post, in the current form, doesn't make any sense.

He's saying people at Google use iPhones.

I don't know if that's true, but the times I've visited silicon valley I didnt see many android phones.

You're typically issued a corporate phone, it's the only phone that can open work email. You have a choice between an Android (something like a Pixel and a Samsung) and an iPhone, with some companies incentivising Androids with things like a faster upgrade cycle or more premium trims. The culture is split between having just the one free corporate phone and having two phones - one personal, one corporate.

There are lots of examples of Android team employees who are proud of using only Apple phones.

Check the "socially inept tech roast show" - where people from those teams demonstrate their ignorance and hatered towards own products and users.

Since they dont use them, they dont see nor care about bugs.

Meanwhile if you work for a cola company and they catch you drinking competing product you will get fired (your contract bans you fron that). Same for many other products.

I understand using an Apple phone to learn what it does / its featurs, but those Android employees dont use Android at all. And it shows

What is wrong with circular prompt injection?

The "disabled organization" looks like a sarcastic comment on the crappy error code the author got when banned.

> What is wrong with circular prompt injection?

That you might be trying to jailbreak Claude and Anthropic does not like that (I'm not endorsing, just trying to understand).

USA exports services (tech, culture, r&d) and will lose all of that for the unclear manufacturing that might never come.

It's like watching the fall of Rome.. on TV

Because it has to start somewhere.

Also many countries collect disposable plastic.

Mozilla the one which:

* lost market share of its product from 30 to 2%

* spends money on fun projects and acqusitions that generate no revenue, while taking away what the users wanted (addons, extensions, customizing) since supposedly this is hard to do

* spends money on politics instead of core product

And many more

You should read a business book too. Focusing on core product (firefox) should be top priority, especially if it is the only real product that generates revenue.

Soon music will stop and there will be no money, since it got spent on everything else.

The problem is Mozilla's mission is not to develop a browser! They have a browser, and it is what everyone knows them for, but their mission is only vaguely related to the browser. I don't care much about their mission - there are plenty of other charities that have similar missions if I did. I care about a great browsers and they are not delivering that - which is fine as far as their mission, but I'm miffed because I can't get what I want from anyone.

What do business books say you should do when the primary way you lose your market is illegal and anti-competitive business practices from a megacorp in a political environment anathema to punishing anti-competitive business practices?

Please tell me how Firefox was supposed to compete with Chrome being bundled with nearly any download of any software anywhere, and with a one click installer on the Google homepage. The value of that advertising alone far exceeds what Mozilla could afford.

People who think it's Mozilla's failure to have been utterly crushed by illegal business practices are so strange to me.

What did you expect to happen? Why do you think we have laws against this stuff in the first place? How would you have outspent the behemoth on advertising? How would you have overcome a competitor being included with nearly everything done on a computer?

Google Chrome's abuse of installers was so bad that Microsoft had to change how it sets "default browser" because Google was setting itself as the default entirely without user interaction! Tons of the marketshare that went from Firefox to Chrome did not do so intentionally, did not even know, and did not mean to

It's funny, because Firefox gained dominant market share in a time when Internet was much younger and Internet Explorer was bundled with Windows.

However Firefox offered something that IE did not have - extensions and customization, so those "in the know" popularized it. Especially abilty to block ads spread as word of mouth.

Then the "in the know" people would install Firefox and recommend it (for free!) to their family and friends.

Now we are in time when Google creates various "manifests" that are a fancy way of saying that they want to cut on ad-blocks in Chrome... so it would be Firefox time to shine again. What do they do? Their CEO (previous one) says that they dont want adblocks and could in fact get rid of them! So opposite of what made Firefox popular in the first place!

Then on top of that they developers of firefox have a big internal problem: they dont want to do what users want (ability to make addons, extensions and customize thing). They dont want to do that because it is "hard". They want to do greenfield projects that nobody is interested in. Note that those developers dont write Firefox for free, they earn good salaries. But management lets them do what they want.

The differentiator for Firefox were extensions - but those were killed, because the team did not want to support them

Business book will ask you "what is the unique proposition of Firefox" - it was adblock now and they want to kill even this.

That argument is a lot less convincing now that Brave (by their previous CTO) has seen exponential growth the last few years while Firefox has just cruised. It turns out Firefox just kinda sucks.