5 ms·

Dude must have an ego the size of a planet to say something like that

by donkarma 5y ago

iqanq 5y ago
One of the most histrionic characters in the tech scene, and that's a lot to say.
waffle_maniac 5y ago
Brave is on track to destroy his legacy. https://brave.com/transparency/ https://brave.com/transparency/
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Why would this be the case? Chrome's rise didn't destroy Firefox or Mozilla's legacy, so it's not clear why a fork would.
  - waffle_maniac 5y ago
    The past doesn't always define the future. Younger folks are more interested in privacy. And Brave is more than just a "fork."
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > Younger folks are more interested in privacy. I believe this. I'd like to understand how, exactly, moving from a non-profit foundation's browser to a for-profit corporation's fork of that browser with a built in ad marketplace is a net win for my privacy. That seems like a net loss: the incentive is now to make money off of me, and the browser is actually running non-website code with that goal in mind.
      - waffle_maniac 5y ago
        * Brave ads are optin * Machine learning for ads is done locally; can't be evil * Trackers and third party ads are blocked. When is FireFox going to block third party ads and trackers?
        woodruffw 5y ago
        My understanding is that Firefox has supported in-browser blocking of third-party ads, trackers, fingerprinters, &c., for a while now[1]. > * Machine learning for ads is done locally; can't be evil There are too many moving pieces to this to dissect in a single comment. But to roughly sum them up: just about every adtech company that promises "privacy preserving targeted advertising" via ML uses some information-theoretical definition of privacy that doesn't align with normal user's intuitions about the word "private." We saw this with k-anonymity schemes, and we'll see it again when these schemes attract more scrutiny. And on top of that: Brave's own site implies that local ad ML is currently opt-in only[2]. [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... [2]: https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/ https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/
        waffle_maniac 5y ago
        > My understanding is that Firefox has supported in-browser blocking of third-party ads, trackers, fingerprinters, &c., for a while now I see the part about trackers. What about ads? Does it also block YouTube ads? That's a really nice feature built into Brave. > just about every adtech company that promises "privacy preserving targeted advertising" via ML The difference here is it happens in the browser. Does ML happen in Chrome? > Brave's own site implies that local ad ML is currently opt-in only Your reading of that isn't correct. The opt in is for ads. And local machine learning comes along with opting in.
        throwaway946513 5y ago
        > I see the part about trackers, what about ads? Doe sit also block YouTube ads? Ads are the way the internet can be funded. For most free sites, they need to either be subsidized by another income (see say a personal website that you host yourself - you pay for the domain and hosting if it's not local). Or by either selling a product (see many software companies), or lastly by using ads (see YouTube, Vimeo, and numerous other video sharing sites) I understand targeted ads being a nuisance and vehemently despise the datamining that supports said systems. But ads in general aren't an evil until they obfuscate the core material of a site. When you block ads, especially on YouTube for creators who use the platform to attract ads and sell their content then you prevent people who've worked to supply their income. If your issue is the ethics that are at odds with Alphabet and the privacy concerns, your fight is with your government to restrict them, Alphabet's own trackers (which you can work towards disabling).
- mort96 5y ago
  What's the connection between jwz and Brave? The only connection I can see is just that both jwz and Brendan Eich worked at Mozilla and now Eich has gone on to start Brave, but presumably there's more than that?
  - BrendanEich 5y ago
    Thread: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1478808783006552065?s=20 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1478808783006552065?s... jwz and I were among the actual, full-time job, staff@mozilla.org Mozilla founders. There was no "Mozilla" to work at then, it was Netscape employing almost all staff members, with Chris Blizzard of Red Hat dotted in. Mozilla was not spun out until 2003 summer, when AOL laid off most of Netscape but kept three of us mozillans for a few months to complete the transition to the new nonprofit.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Saying "jwz worked at Mozilla" totally understates his role in writing one of the original web browsers, Netscape Navigator, and his part in the creation of Mozilla.org, among other things. It's like saying Bill Gates worked at Microsoft, or that Larry Page and Sergey Brin worked at Google. Thus Brave supplanting Firefox could metaphorically be seen as Mr Eich supplanting jwz. (That's a huge "if", mind you)
    - BrendanEich 5y ago
      What a fractured fairy tale. jwz and I were true co-founders of Mozilla (see my reply nearby just posted). But jwz quit after a year: https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html I led Mozilla on all tech decision making from 1998 through 2014. Does this mean I was "supplanting" myself by doing Brave? No. In doing Brave, I certainly was not supplanting jwz, who had nothing to do with Firefox (born as mozilla/browser in 2001, over two years after jwz quit).
      - fragmede 5y ago
        Thank you for the clarification! (I should be more careful how I phrase things. I didn't expect a personal response from a celebrity like yourself who's part of history and the anestory!)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
drewzero1 5y ago
Thought I recognized the name, check out what his website shows when linked from HN: https://cdn.jwz.org/images/2016/hn.png https://cdn.jwz.org/images/2016/hn.png Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a fan of cryptocurrency, but I'm also less than impressed with jwz's maturity. If I didn't know he founded Mozilla, I would've taken him for an angry teenage kid trying to be edgy on the internet.
- donkarma 5y ago
  thank you for reminding me to disable referrers in Firefox :)
  - cypherpunks01 5y ago
    Ahem, I believe the correct term may be referers :)
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  If he left out "fuck you and fuck this," the rest of the tweet is still incendiary enough to send the message without the edginess. Might have come across better that way. Regardless, it's sad to watch Mozilla debase themselves, not only by supporting crypto at this stage of the game, but with cringeworthy meme language like "HODL." That was funny for about a week during the Gamestop fiasco; a year later it's another "how do you do, fellow kids" moment.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    You have to meet the customer where they are. Dogecoin IS a meme and has/had a multi-billion dollar cap. Can't blame Mozilla for openly scraping the bottom of the barrel with their marketing.
    - salt-thrower 5y ago
      > Can't blame Mozilla for openly scraping the bottom of the barrel with their marketing. Yes I can. It makes them look cheap and corny, and weakens their credibility. > Dogecoin IS a meme and has/had a multi-billion dollar cap Sure, for about a month, a year ago. It's old news. Anyone still "HODLing" Doge is just a speculator who missed the last wave and is desperately hoping it'll come back so they can sell out. Point is, Mozilla is wasting their time by marketing to that crowd. Scraping the bottom of the barrel is a bad look.
tasha0663 5y ago
He's one of the more entertaining figures of that generation. IIRC there were some huge flamewars between him and rms during the Xemacs fork. He still maintains XScreensaver, but now his day job is the ownership of a bar/pizza/venue establishment.
- Hendrikto 5y ago
  > his day job is the ownership of a bar/pizza/venue establishment Probably a better fit for him.
- wlonkly 5y ago
  More of a hobby, I think. I doubt jwz needs to work for a living.

Dude must have an ego the size of a planet to say something like that

iqanq 5y ago

One of the most histrionic characters in the tech scene, and that's a lot to say.

waffle_maniac 5y ago

Brave is on track to destroy his legacy. https://brave.com/transparency/ https://brave.com/transparency/

woodruffw 5y ago
Why would this be the case? Chrome's rise didn't destroy Firefox or Mozilla's legacy, so it's not clear why a fork would.
- waffle_maniac 5y ago
  The past doesn't always define the future. Younger folks are more interested in privacy. And Brave is more than just a "fork."
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > Younger folks are more interested in privacy. I believe this. I'd like to understand how, exactly, moving from a non-profit foundation's browser to a for-profit corporation's fork of that browser with a built in ad marketplace is a net win for my privacy. That seems like a net loss: the incentive is now to make money off of me, and the browser is actually running non-website code with that goal in mind.
    - waffle_maniac 5y ago
      * Brave ads are optin * Machine learning for ads is done locally; can't be evil * Trackers and third party ads are blocked. When is FireFox going to block third party ads and trackers?
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        My understanding is that Firefox has supported in-browser blocking of third-party ads, trackers, fingerprinters, &c., for a while now[1]. > * Machine learning for ads is done locally; can't be evil There are too many moving pieces to this to dissect in a single comment. But to roughly sum them up: just about every adtech company that promises "privacy preserving targeted advertising" via ML uses some information-theoretical definition of privacy that doesn't align with normal user's intuitions about the word "private." We saw this with k-anonymity schemes, and we'll see it again when these schemes attract more scrutiny. And on top of that: Brave's own site implies that local ad ML is currently opt-in only[2]. [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... [2]: https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/ https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/
        waffle_maniac 5y ago
        > My understanding is that Firefox has supported in-browser blocking of third-party ads, trackers, fingerprinters, &c., for a while now I see the part about trackers. What about ads? Does it also block YouTube ads? That's a really nice feature built into Brave. > just about every adtech company that promises "privacy preserving targeted advertising" via ML The difference here is it happens in the browser. Does ML happen in Chrome? > Brave's own site implies that local ad ML is currently opt-in only Your reading of that isn't correct. The opt in is for ads. And local machine learning comes along with opting in.
        throwaway946513 5y ago
        > I see the part about trackers, what about ads? Doe sit also block YouTube ads? Ads are the way the internet can be funded. For most free sites, they need to either be subsidized by another income (see say a personal website that you host yourself - you pay for the domain and hosting if it's not local). Or by either selling a product (see many software companies), or lastly by using ads (see YouTube, Vimeo, and numerous other video sharing sites) I understand targeted ads being a nuisance and vehemently despise the datamining that supports said systems. But ads in general aren't an evil until they obfuscate the core material of a site. When you block ads, especially on YouTube for creators who use the platform to attract ads and sell their content then you prevent people who've worked to supply their income. If your issue is the ethics that are at odds with Alphabet and the privacy concerns, your fight is with your government to restrict them, Alphabet's own trackers (which you can work towards disabling).
mort96 5y ago
What's the connection between jwz and Brave? The only connection I can see is just that both jwz and Brendan Eich worked at Mozilla and now Eich has gone on to start Brave, but presumably there's more than that?
- BrendanEich 5y ago
  Thread: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1478808783006552065?s=20 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1478808783006552065?s... jwz and I were among the actual, full-time job, staff@mozilla.org Mozilla founders. There was no "Mozilla" to work at then, it was Netscape employing almost all staff members, with Chris Blizzard of Red Hat dotted in. Mozilla was not spun out until 2003 summer, when AOL laid off most of Netscape but kept three of us mozillans for a few months to complete the transition to the new nonprofit.
- fragmede 5y ago
  Saying "jwz worked at Mozilla" totally understates his role in writing one of the original web browsers, Netscape Navigator, and his part in the creation of Mozilla.org, among other things. It's like saying Bill Gates worked at Microsoft, or that Larry Page and Sergey Brin worked at Google. Thus Brave supplanting Firefox could metaphorically be seen as Mr Eich supplanting jwz. (That's a huge "if", mind you)
  - BrendanEich 5y ago
    What a fractured fairy tale. jwz and I were true co-founders of Mozilla (see my reply nearby just posted). But jwz quit after a year: https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html I led Mozilla on all tech decision making from 1998 through 2014. Does this mean I was "supplanting" myself by doing Brave? No. In doing Brave, I certainly was not supplanting jwz, who had nothing to do with Firefox (born as mozilla/browser in 2001, over two years after jwz quit).
    - fragmede 5y ago
      Thank you for the clarification! (I should be more careful how I phrase things. I didn't expect a personal response from a celebrity like yourself who's part of history and the anestory!)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

drewzero1 5y ago

Thought I recognized the name, check out what his website shows when linked from HN: https://cdn.jwz.org/images/2016/hn.png https://cdn.jwz.org/images/2016/hn.png Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a fan of cryptocurrency, but I'm also less than impressed with jwz's maturity. If I didn't know he founded Mozilla, I would've taken him for an angry teenage kid trying to be edgy on the internet.

donkarma 5y ago
thank you for reminding me to disable referrers in Firefox :)
- cypherpunks01 5y ago
  Ahem, I believe the correct term may be referers :)
salt-thrower 5y ago
If he left out "fuck you and fuck this," the rest of the tweet is still incendiary enough to send the message without the edginess. Might have come across better that way. Regardless, it's sad to watch Mozilla debase themselves, not only by supporting crypto at this stage of the game, but with cringeworthy meme language like "HODL." That was funny for about a week during the Gamestop fiasco; a year later it's another "how do you do, fellow kids" moment.
- rchaud 5y ago
  You have to meet the customer where they are. Dogecoin IS a meme and has/had a multi-billion dollar cap. Can't blame Mozilla for openly scraping the bottom of the barrel with their marketing.
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    > Can't blame Mozilla for openly scraping the bottom of the barrel with their marketing. Yes I can. It makes them look cheap and corny, and weakens their credibility. > Dogecoin IS a meme and has/had a multi-billion dollar cap Sure, for about a month, a year ago. It's old news. Anyone still "HODLing" Doge is just a speculator who missed the last wave and is desperately hoping it'll come back so they can sell out. Point is, Mozilla is wasting their time by marketing to that crowd. Scraping the bottom of the barrel is a bad look.

tasha0663 5y ago

He's one of the more entertaining figures of that generation. IIRC there were some huge flamewars between him and rms during the Xemacs fork. He still maintains XScreensaver, but now his day job is the ownership of a bar/pizza/venue establishment.

Hendrikto 5y ago
> his day job is the ownership of a bar/pizza/venue establishment Probably a better fit for him.
wlonkly 5y ago
More of a hobby, I think. I doubt jwz needs to work for a living.