Are you "users"? What are you basing your idea of what users want? Most users don't install any extensions, most users use AI, and most users will compare Firefox with browsers that have native AI integration.
> The main reason we don't have an alternative to Visa/Mastercard duopoly is protectionism of EU countries. There are local alternatives that do pretty well (BLIK in Poland, Revolut Pay in countries where it's popular) but entering more markets is like pulling teeth because EU throws regulatory obstacles at every step.
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense? How did Visa & Mastercard manage to go through the "protectionism of EU countries" then?
You forgot the part where there is a bootstrap problem for any fintech.
You need the appropriate license to make money, but you can only get that license if you already have enough money.
On top of that is a requirement that basically demands that you have employees in charge that have worked and gained job experience at the established businesses.
This is good for stability, but it also means that innovation gets nibbed in the bud.
Neither my comment, nor the prior one, had anything to do with fintech.
Concerning "innovation" in financial systems, done by relative outsiders, with little experience or incentive to keep the system stable: Given the track record, I'd argue that such innovations should either be outright banned, or limited to some tiny percentage of the relevant financial market. The world does not need more FTX's.
No the OP, but I feel like using LLMs to code is much more like management than coding. And the "person" you're managing is a not very smart coder with severe memory issues.
Searching online, it seems to be comparing to coal miners specifically, not the industry as a whole. In any case, what conclusions are you drawing from this?
Not OP, but I have heard the comparison used when discussing jobs. There tends to be rhetoric in the US that transitioning away from coal and oil will lead to large job losses, so this is an anecdote disproving it.
I mean, assuming it's true, the obvious conclusion would be that there should be reasonable limits on what is done to save such a small industry. Looks like there are 40-45k people employed in coal mining in the US, depending on who you ask. _Even if there was no downside to keeping it going_, that would probably only be worth modest government action to keep it on life support; it's simply not a big industry.
I'm not American so perhaps I'm completely out of the loop, but is the justification for coal usage in the US to do with jobs? I thought it's more about climate change denial & costs (& stick it to the leftists).
I mean, it's definitely caught up with climate change denial, but a lot of the _justification_ for supporting what is increasingly an economically unviable industry is jobs.
(It wasn't even solar or wind or nuclear that killed coal. Really, it was _gas_; the writing was on the wall for the industry some time ago.)
Don't get too excited about their views - they very much believe that the land belongs to Jews, they just think they should wait for the Messiah to give us the signal before going there.
It's funny how people associate their views with humanism: they are simply extremely religious and on this specific question, the current result of their extreme beliefs happen to align with yours.
Oh, I am under no impression that they are less than batshit religious. But they are a very clear counterexample to the bullshit claim that I was responding to.
When it comes to their most basic democratic rights - the right to vote and the right to be elected - they're also better than most Arabs in Arab countries.
reply