Biggest voice according tho whom, you or what. You do not even understand that Chrome is not entirely build by Google. Its a multi all-in-one-application just stitched together by Google, the rest is included or developed by Google because there are no alternatives that you can use or they invented it. No its not admitting. Its how things just work, do you give random stranger your car keys and trust him and then afterwards get accused to manipulate the market because that user wanted to use your car to buy another car. No. Reality is you sit with them on a table, get one hand on the wheel, earn trust and then you can ask and influence form the inside, proving you are worthy. Then you develop standards and people would actually listen. Ignoring them, saying oh they are the devil and mother G is root issue for all the evil in the world, boring …

when that product and its soft forks nearly have the monopoly on web browsers. Because then it means that Google has the biggest voice in the future directions taken by the web.

It is relevant since the web uses what exist and not what your hopes, dreams and promises stitch together. There is no competition, this is underlying problem, due to lack of funding, govt even advertise organisations because they make deals with them see Microsoft and the Pentagon etc. History here is long, the problem is you influence the web proving something and Mozilla provides nothing. Why use Mozilla, share your data and trust with them and then switch to other apps and providers because you depend on other programs and services anyway, when you can have the all in one package with Google, this is what people in the world care about. It is not practical to depend on 100 apps, and services when you anyway end up sharing data, then better use one provider and that is it. They are just reliable enough and they simply have the user base.

The 1 Percent idealistic people sure as hell do not represent the web. Points you ignore. Web shit out Mozilla in an instant. And no clown fork will help.

5-10 years from now Brave smoked Firefox and it does not surprise me one single bit. They just offer what people want, search, sync … you name it, vpn, god knows what is not already planned or possible with more support. So you trust one entity and do not rely on 100 others. Mozillas user base will shrink together of people with sentiments and people who invested time and money into project, sadly this will be the end, but not a surprise, ironically without money from mother G they would be already dead in the water … So you bash the hand that feeds you… cringe

• I already outlined Germanys problem it is the crippled energy network, a network that was not designed for renewables and decentralized solutions. Fossil fuel debate is over as I explained that other things also depend on it, of course you import more and more because demand is higher and higher that does not start with energy and does not only stop with energy. Making transition will also forces you to use fossil sources.
• No one except you talked about coal, that is correct. My proposal does not even mention coal or the relevance since exploiting another resource is not put into consideration.
• You cannot ditch fossil. Since there is no alternatives, you annoy me with your repeatedly copy and paste nonsense.
• Pollution does not exist with wind energy and pollution si human created problem not natural one. This I already linked in multiple threads. Its an industrial problem combined with cities, cars, etc. Not nuclear as nuclear does not itself create pollution, maybe how you mine uranium, if we put all into consideration but that is all. My model is also not about co2 and pollution since none of my mentioned stuff produce per-se any pollution, only once to establish them which is acceptable.
• Time gamble can fail, I already mentioned it. Its dangerous to think every problem can be solved. The fossil topic cannot be solved and never will be solved. As practical everything you create, t-shirts, toothpaste depends one way or another on oil. Creating chemical alternatives also only shit the problem, you still need to use - something. And most resources are limited one way or another.
• We can ditch nuclear perfectly, there is no statistics that contradicts that, the provided and mentioned statistics here are based mainly on coal, again no one talked coal. Those presented statistics also put not several things into consideration, like growth and demand as well as money factors, they are usually on CO2 … Which is pointless since you compare that against coal yet again. Wind is not coal. They are also written my american, USA gives less shit about renewables than Germany or for that matter EU.

Discussion is over since I now repeat myself again and again. I have no interest in talking about semantics, it is irrelevant if its 20, 30 or 100 years the outcome will be the same, faster … slower … irrelevant in the big context.

already a process that’s happening naturally that will do the same thing without the worst side effects.

My proposal is not about natural selection. It addresses overpopulation, which is a problem, if there is no further growth or not is not the question, it is about maintaining the status quo because people are not willingly to sacrifice something, which this thread clearly demonstrated … I want more kids I want this … no but I this and that … hard reality is when you confronted with past action that clearly showed there is a problem, ignore it and continue like nothing happened…

Glad you know how our population in the future will look like, will quote you in 10 years when we hit 10B with no end in sight as history showed us that we usually continue and not stop. But we will see who has last word here. Not much into speculation.

The video is also not about engines and what engine someone should use, if you argue on this you do not understand the underlying problem. The engine is to render the content, based on APIs and other things. This has nothing to do with monopolies. As everyone could theoretically create their own standards but you need funding, money and that typically only comes from those who have the money. So this is the underlying point.

Your math and numbers are just incorrect as you refuse to accept that the Browser is not one big project, it is more a multi media all-in-one project and there are others involved, this you do not understand, as you clearly displayed.

I admit nothing I say how things are and if you pump 1 billion into it you should get the voice, this is just normal and Mozilla does the same, as they have also the last word on what pull request they integrate. This is normal and not something essential that has something to do with control, you cannot just give random people commit rights, there must always be a review process. If you want a sit on the table you need to pay you way into it, this is just how this works, and with only words, hopes and dreams you will simply get a lower voice. It is like saying oh I know better than elon musk, but he actually spend 3 billions to sit on the twitter table, so of course he calls more shots than you, this is why the government needs to fund projects and not advertise organisations.

Your refusal to accept that there is no Mozilla fork while there is in mass successfully forks such as Brave, Vivaldi and so many others… is just cringe. Mozilla has only clown forks that make no impact on the web as they are mainly run by sentimental people and not actually people who develop standards, pump their money into it and this is when your logic miserably fails.

• Can I see mozillas youtube competition
• Can I see mozillas vpn, whops its mullvad and only after pressure after years of outcry from the community
• Can I see their email service to compete against gmail
• Can I see ads alternatives…
• Can I see …

There is nothing and people care only about what you can take… This is how web works … not with hopes, dreams and blah… funding, proposal, review, frameworks, alternatives and documentation… You simply INVEST into something and then you can spread it for the mass. Google did that with success, provided free services, advertised it and gained control. Things Mozilla missed, instead they run in Googles shadow, behind, too late, slow … incompetent. I blame the CEO actually he is as incompetent as Microsofts CEO but they are in a much better positions that allows more mistakes.

We are now on an off-topic level. Since I am not here to explain the science behind my proposal, I only clearly say we need to fund those projects more, use the money for it and not for nuclear and make the transition better now than later.

However, I will address some things here.

I actually saw her video, she is into science and involved into such topics. So, she is at least are more credible source then the typically YouTuber who stitches something together and thinks that this is reality. She usually makes her homework and she admitted struggling with the video, because its a delicate and complex problem. Hands down, this is not solvable anytime soon, I think 10, 20, 30 years. She mention older problems going back to the 80s when this idea started to gain more attraction because cold war problematic and the first actual research was done on a bigger scale outlining possible problems, that is important as it shows the history and the progression we made. Since then science evolved, we got better methods and it is close to finally run in the real world. This is important to mention. There are like with every tech problems, and it usually takes decades to fix, I mention it because this is key essence of my proposal. Use the time now and not later. The faster you start on researching into alternatives to more time you have to perfect the process.

I give her points that she tries to explain the fusion reactor problems that actually exist, they are more or less correct, the numbers she mention or the underlying math is subject to another thread as this is controversial topic on its own, some say so others say other numbers and there are several systems with different outcomes, tokamak, iter and other systems work a bit different and their efficiency depends on various variables. It should be noted that those systems are TEST reactors, not the ones actually for mass producing energy, they are examples to test the math and the idea. Those are used to test the theory, final solution might look different based on how the outcome of those tests will be.

I am absolutely not downplaying that there are still problems with fusion, the more I say we need to pump more money into research to get this finally running.

I am not here debating numbers, because they might change with further improvements.

I think she outlined also the same as I said

• Resources are limited
• We need to check on what research we invest into
• Marketing is bad, btw on both ends - Fusion as well as Nuclear - on both ends they typically play with useless numbers to make it look better than it actually - currently - is. I am not really going to debate this as this is pointless since no fusion is actually running 24 - 7 so those numbers and marketing is purely made by hopes, dreams and promises. Not to mention that when you change some variables you get other numbers. As she correctly mention q total vs q plasma.
• My proposal directly mention that we should use wind, water etc more that are secure, even if there is a disaster, I typically plan with disasters and destruction on put this into consideration already. It is easier to rebuild than invest into an uncertain system with no end solution. The argumentation against this point of my proposal is something I cannot agree into, as nuclear is not a time stretcher because you shift problems and it did not helped the climate, we still have the issues, and I clearly outline that fusion is also not a end solution but it possible solves one problem to research into other problems that need to be solved. The difference here is that you do not store atomic bombs under your table, fusion energy radiation is ENTIRELY gone within 60-100 years, this is acceptable and more realistic to predict. Meaning I take this anytime over atomic waste that needs to be stored so long that governments will fundamentally change and the politics until then will also change fundamentally. Fusion simply, even if now imperfect simply provides a bigger opportunity in terms of long term planing, as the process can be improved over time and the risks are here much much less and more acceptable, the burden here is way less than with nuclear.

Another problem that is not even mentioned is - false positives. Assuming you are a visitor of a crime scene and come close to suspects and the police investigate you, your connections and friends and everyone who is connected to you, they might block your friends flight, close their accounts to avoid that someone escapes or go to other places easily … even if you did nothing wrong.

I always tell the same old boring story but it really happened.

There was like 16 years ago now someone who did crime and they froze me on the airport only because I was his friend, points out he was the one who actually did the crime but they froze me and cancelled my flight only based on conjecture because their impression was that I maybe was accomplish of him who tries to get into another country. And you typically do not hear such stories in the echo chamber media…

• Thorium as well as molten salt still need to be feed with fresh material, you gain max 1000 years, this is already calculated you still run out and the more reactors you create the faster those 1000 years will shrink. Compensating is not possible.
• You still produce waste.
• You still have downsides, lots of them, linked them multiple times already.
• Nuclear war is already at risk with Ukraine, the risk is not theoretically, it is actually real threat and even if there is no Ukraine, the next political conflict will come so or so.
• If nuclear fallout happen then you have other problems to worry about than climate. This is then only the cherry on top.
• I do not argue human life here, with no one. Better … when is it better … when 1 dies … 10, 100… when is enough enough. Nuclear killed thousands of people, there is not even a statistic on how many people die alone of mining the uranium that causes cancer. Maybe 5000k± and how many will die in next years when next reactors blow up and how will climate respond when you pump in waste water back into ocean and claim is all clean, secure … unpredictable…

Nuclear is mass suicide supported by Trump voter, same misguided people.

The point is that the disasters getting worse not better. I have an entire community for fusion, I do not need videos, I in general give shits about videos.

Will monitor the news when the next disaster occurs if you volunteer going into the death trap to help when the next reactor got hit my the next tsunami.

No supporter will then open his mouth… or volunteer… you can count on it…

I choose none of it because diasters will happen with nuclear energy or not, what you change is once the next tsunami hit the next nuclear power plant that you deliberately risk peoples live on a gamble so that you can continue to do whatever you do best, exploiting the earth and their resources and think you can win a prize with this strategy. You can and will always lose with this kind of thinking.

History showed that Nuclear Power plants do not reduce or keep the climate how it is, we got overall +2C since we use nuclear, within 60-100 years climate changed that much, with and without nuclear. Nuclear power plants will not stop the growth and the demand and you numbers are in general too high. 6C in net 100 years is unrealistic.

You can use the nuclear material from atomic bombs, use this as a middle ground to get rid of it, of course the waste issue will continue to exist when the music stops playing but it would be more efficient than using it as threat.

Once green systems are in place, it is overall cheaper for the consumer. I could post what I would pay for nuclear … numbers are rising each year not sinking btw … and then what I pay for green energy … numbers are falling each year.

It’s the other way around. Which browser you use is what directly determines whether monopoly and private companies develop the standard you use.

No it is not, this is a myth. As you also can use free software on closed OS, which happens to be the standard. Keyword Microsoft and Windows. You also can choose to not support this, it is you and not the monopoly. If there is no alternative that is usable, people continue to use what they got. It is the underlying problem, Firefox is so bad and so unusable by default, so people switch or use something else. Nothing to do with Monopoly. The standards itself are created and dictated by monopolies, so it plays no role what you use if it anyway ends up that you must support such standards.

You could write a standard independently of those companies, but then if everyone chooses to use browser engines from companies that don’t follow it, what’s the point?

The point is that user generated or govt establish frameworks can b used as basis.Its useless if you build a browser surrounded by standards created by Microsoft, IBM etc alone.

If everyone uses a particular browser then whatever that browser implements becomes the standard. It’s all about what browser you use.

This is already the case, you can choose not to use FLoC. Nothing changes here.

If what you want is everyone using the same basis, then what you need is to get everyone to use the same browser engine (which is what is happening already).

Please learn the difference between Browser engine and web standards, nonsense you talk here. Your Browser engine can adopt, implement or reject standards. Irrelevant in dyding discussion anyway since you provide absolute no solutions yourself in the discussion here, like everyone else people feeding off my ideas, practical in every thread. That you cannot continue is clear, web gives a shit about Mozilla, clearly the case. Some people hold together by hopes and delusions do not represent the web. Never did.

The discussion here is not about Browser you use, as people use whatever works best for them, and not what implements xyz, this is clearly shown in practical every thread. So enforcing your ideas will not work for the mass, better way around is to create open frameworks, documents that are actually usable and directly easily reviewable because at the end of the day your Browser runs pretty much on Android and iOS and not a open system. There exist open alternatives but they are not well funded, future unclear and the web - the main user - does not use it, they trust big corpos, they rely on their eco-system. Like Mozilla relies on money from yahoo, google etc in the past. Corpos you shit-talk.

It is silly to store the waste under your table and expect nothing will happen in 100k years. Fusion already was running, short but it was. Silly is to pump and waste money instead of pushing fusion.

I was not once wrong in this thread. It will happen, no need to be an einstein, next disaster will come…

• Your independence renders useless if Apple blocks your app.
• There is no competition, F-Droid is for example not an replacement, no books, no paid model etc.
• Engine is no - terrible for the web - standards are dictated by Microsoft, IBM, Google
• Google invests their money into standards, so they get a higher voice, if you do not like it you create your own, govt failed here to establish something to encourage people doing that

Current projection is towards 10 billion+ people.

If it cannot exist without squeezing money out of people and generally being abusive, it should not exist.

Wishful thinking, this would be in a Star Trek world, believe me I also want such a world too but reality is people are selfish, egoistic, ignorant and god knows what… The whole NFT thing showed us clearly, to name one example … this is what the web cares about … not idealism or good faith and wishes…

Lets assume you are disabled, your only option is to make money over the web … what then … so your logic here cannot be applied, you want that this person starves to death rather than make some cash or what …

Everything has downsides, always…

That is why funding and help is essential, this must come from above to at least provide people with opportunities and a guidance beyond … oh better use x than y.

So you say we should give up on independent journalism and only let bots on Google news post important infos. I mention Google news to provoke because Mozilla has no own news network that comes close. I am not even telling something new here, the own community came up with ideas for social networks, email systems, news systems - not pocket btw, vpn systems, etc pp. Things Google successfully established. There are also drawbacks like Google+ but you cannot always win. You need to know when its best to review you options and cut things when they become a burden.

I’m saying the web as it is should burn.

… impressive solution…

Those examples are rare examples and are not the standard. Even Martin Brinkman with 150k+ clicks a day had to gave up and sell his page. You cannot pay your bills with hopes and dreams and you cannot expect someone to produce lots of articles when no one supports you.

It already exists and has as long as the web has been around.

Yop, some pages no one heard of it, or pages with 1 post per year like Stallman.org or what. In meantime Google news spits out 100 news a second that actually impact the web and not your 10 clicks a day page.

Totally from another planet dude, cringe. Had to laugh at your bs…

No one here talked about germany and coal. No one. Germany invested more than france or US for renewables. Coal is not renewable. Nice try tho.

We need both long term solutions and transition planning. I don’t know why you keep mentioning that nuclear is not the long term solution, as I never said it was

What you smoke man, nuclear already runs for 50+ years now as transition and it did not helped, you think creating more nuclear energies is the solution while ignoring nasty downsides, how many people you think dies for mining the uranium. No mentioning in any statistics …

In the time that you wait for the research results, you still need to produce energy. Nuclear is better than fossils in that regards, especially consider the climatic emergency.

In the time you create more nuclear plants you can create easy peasy wind and off-shore systems. Planning nuclear power plant and when it goes online is typically according to Wikipoopia a process that takes 10-17 years. In that time you can create thousands of wind parks. Your logic is fundamentally broken, as I clearly outlined that the waste problem cannot be solved, you trade one problem for another, entirely bed on time, which is dangerous, possible also risk human life because the next tsunami will come in the meantime.

So what we just stop using electricity until we can have enough renewable production? But no, you said yourself we should go on with tech and even planes, so not that either.

We just need to stop building more power plants and create wind, water etc systems. Its that simple. Tech allows you to combine multiple solutions.

• Climate change will not be solved with nuclear.
• Climate change will also not be solved with renewables.
• Betting mainly on winning time is a high gamble, once you hit a specific line there is no turning back and some problems can maybe never be solved.