No. More than 80% of Mozilla Corp's income is a yearly payment from Google. [0]
The payment will stop immediately if Google thinks it's no longer needed, or if federal prosecutors (who have determined this payment is illegal) decide the remedy is to stop the payment. [1]
The CEO's job is simple. Say "I think we should take Google's money again this year", and then pocket several million of it. Ca-ching! What are your plans for post-Google-money? Uh uh... AI? Sell out our users to advertisers? [2] It's not looking good.
The Firefox market share continues to dwindle. The board continues to hob-nob with San Francisco socialites and "activists" and use Mozilla as a piggybank to fund their chums. [edit: removed line about Mitchell Baker as she does seem to have finally left]
> Mitchell Baker did not leave the gravy train by stepping down as CEO, she merely moved to a different seat on the gravy train - chair of the Mozilla Foundation
Mitchell has not been a member of the Mozilla Foundation or Mozilla Corporation boards since February 2025.
That's a bad rubric to judge by, in this case. CEO pay is at a historic high, in fact I'm pretty sure the last time the gap in wage between median workers and CEOs was this high was the roaring 20's, which famously went quite well for the economy.
PSA: POSIX shells (bash etc) do the same thing for && and ||. `true || false && false; echo $?` will be 1, not 0, because it evaluates `true || false -> true; true && false -> false`, not `false && false -> false; true || false -> true`. Don't assume like I once did that they have precedence like they have in C etc :D
This approach is, arguably, more readable because it relies on a simple left-to-right evaluation. Programmers don't have to recall the complex, though often familiar, rules of operator precedence.
RPN is slightly easier to parse and interpret but more difficult for most humans to parse and interpret. This is the middle ground that most everyone can quickly and easily adapt to writing and reading but would still be efficient on most any system.
It’s definitely easier to parse, but you can use shunting yard to do operator precedence parsing using very little extra memory and no recursion. I feel like the language is just poorly designed.
To be charitable to its original designers, information was much less easily accessible in the 1960s than today-although the shunting yard algorithm had been published in the research literature in 1961, practitioners working 5-6 years later may plausibly have been unaware of it-it wasn’t like nowadays where they could easily discover it in Wikipedia or by asking an LLM.
Yeah, that's fair enough. I'm sure a lot of weird / bad language design choices can be chalked up to this (COBOL...). Now that C and Pascal derived languages have been around for a long time, even if you don't know about how parsers work, everyone knows that certain syntax / semantics are at least possible since they're the norm, and I suppose that wasn't the case back then.
I implemented the same in some of my programming languages. If you look into very generic mixfix operators in some languages like Agda, you'll realize that operator precedence is a mess and it feels so much better to get rid of it. Of course, it makes the language unusable as a mainstream language, but it makes so much more logical sense.
The explanation that makes most sense to me is that it's mostly to avoid having to explicitly write out parentheses a lot of the time. Especially for things like polynomials, which are a bunch of multiplied terms added together, eg 3x+2y and not (3*x)+(2*y). And in polynomials you can even drop the explicit multiplication symbol, so it's much neater. And once you've done this for algebra now you have to do it for plain arithmetic as well to make it all match up, and 3*5+2*7 gives the same answer as evaluating the polynomial at 5,7
Not just simplicity-the original implementation was for a very resource-constrained 1960s minicomputer, where a more complex implementation would have slowed the system down even more and left less memory for running the actual business application
One of my favorite things about Curtis Yarvin is that one of his main ideas is laughably easy to prove wrong. He says that whenever we go into the past, the previous generation seems to be more "right-wing" than the current one. Which is almost comically wrong. For example, you get Victorian Era being much more conservative than its predecessor, Georgian Era. Same goes for Christian Roman Empire vs Pagan Roman Empire, Nazi Germany vs Weimar Germany, etc etc. There are literally dozens of examples. It seems that Yarvin genuinely doesn't know any of these high school-level facts.
Well, it's not about being monotonically the case year-over-year, but the overal "weighted average" direction of the vector pointing towards less right-wing.
Obviously e.g. the Weimar youth was liberal and partying and then Germans turned to fascism in the 30s. But that was a temporary setback, not the general direction of change. Overall Germans of 20th century are much less conservative and right wing than Germans of the 19th century, same for 18th century and so on.
It's also not really about antiquity, but about the arrow of modernity (say, 16th century onwards). The concept of left/right wing is not something applicable to Pagans and Romans (although both were way more "right wing" than the Christian era if we try to judge them under this anachronism).
Lots of the other models are checkpoint releases, and latest is a pointer to the latest checkpoint. Something being continuously updated is quite different and worth knowing about.
Unfortunately, based on my experience, GPT-3.5 is simply not up to snuff in phone conversations in terms of style and reasoning. And GPT-4T latency is far too large for real-time conversation with straightforward STT-TextGen-TTS pipeline.
If they think it's being absorbed through the lungs then they should plug the subjects noses and have them inhale instead of sniffing it. But that's a far fetched assumption. Assuming the effect is real at all, it's almost certainly chemical detection through the nose. That's odor. That's why they had the subjects sniff it, because they obviously suspect that it's based on odor.
If, let’s say for sake of argument, this study’s hypothesis is that the effect is caused by pheromones, then by definition it’s odorless.
In fact, one of the inherent challenges of trying to study this effect between humans is that the participants need to be clean and odorless, to ensure you’re actually measuring the effects of pheromones and not, say, odor. This review talks about this challenge[0].
You nose detects it and your brain reacts to it; it's odor. Just because you don't consciously perceive it doesn't mean it isn't odor. If it isn't odor then there isn't any other good word for it.
>Assuming the effect is real at all, it's almost certainly chemical detection through the nose. That's odor.
No, odor is a perceived smell. UV and IR both interact with the eye without being visible, so there's no good reason to insist that it's impossible for chemicals with no smell to interact with the nose.
When chemicals float through the air into your nose or mouth and get detected by your brain, that's odor. Conscious perception or unconscious emotional reaction makes no difference, both are odor. If there are no chemicals being emitted or they have no reaction to your nose and your nose doesn't change the signals it's sending to your brain, then you can fairly say it has no odor.
To say that odors aren't odors unless they are consciously perceived is like saying UV isn't light because you don't consciously perceive it. Except it's the same physical phenomena, electromagnetic radiation or chemicals floating through the air, your sensory organs are detecting it (mostly being destroyed by it in the case of UV, but probably not in the case of tear odor...) and your brain is reacting to it even though you don't consciously realize it.
>To say that odors aren't odors unless they are consciously perceived is like saying UV isn't light because you don't consciously perceive it
No, I'm saying that EM doesn't produce colors unless it's visible light. What you're saying is that not only are cold, pressure, and pain flavors, so are any additional effects on satiety or insulin response or whatever triggered by any interaction with receptors on the tongue.
That's a different definition of odor than commonly accepted. If you can't consciously perceive it, it's not an odor. Just like you can't see the TV remote shine a bright infrared light. We don't call TV remotes flashlights, because we can't perceive infrared. If we can't consciously perceive a smell, it's described as odorless.
If tears are being detected by the brain, it's through chemicals from the tears traveling through the air and landing on sensors in your nose (or mouth); that is odor. If there is some mechanism other than odor by which humans might distinguish tears them from saline solution after sniffing them, please tell me.
Odors also being detected with your tongue is irrelevant trivia which doesn't alter my conclusion. Sound can be heard through your chest but that's irrelevant trivia when somebody says "if there's no air to transmit pressure waves to your ears then there's no sound." Sound is transmitted through pressure waves in the air, and odors are transmitted through chemicals in the air. If you're hearing them with your ears or chest or smelling them with your nose or mouth makes no difference, the fact that any detection is evidently taking place shows that there is sound or odor involved. Furthermore, the researchers obviously suspect that the mechanism of detection is odor because they asked their subjects to sniff it. You don't ask subjects to sniff a thing unless you suspect odor of being involved. If researchers were studying the perception of magnetic fields, they wouldn't ask people to sniff the fields.
Again, if there is any other plausible mechanism for detection, then tell me. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
If your goal is to produce a lot of value and you don’t care about others capturing it, then it may actually be a good way to go, especially with the non-profit setup.
I bet "new advanced AI research team" at Microsoft is going to be underwhelming for many, but really, it should be eye-opening. This is what startups, especially VC-backed capital-intensive AI startups, usually are.
