I wonder if it's a time-zone thing with when the link was posted. I think I remember reacting myself at least somewhat negatively to Gemini first time I heard

I wonder if it's a time-zone thing with when the link was posted. I think I remember reacting myself at least somewhat negatively to Gemini first time I heard about it, so on some level I understand how someone's initial reaction could be hostile -- but I also feel like "limited tools producing tight-knit communities and specific community-tailored content" is right up HN's alley, and I am also surprised to see so many people questioning why this should exist. "It doesn't work for the majority of the web." So? I assume the project isn't lying, it does actually support HTML. I just don't see how it's a bad thing to have a lightweight browser that handles static HTML; I don't think anyone is advocating that anybody uninstall Firefox over this. ---- I'll kind of go a step further here and give a mildly hot take: nobody should be doing normal browsing on an indie browser in the first place; I consider that a likely security/privacy risk. The vast majority of indie browsers do not have full-featured uBlock Origin support, they don't have the browser hardening features that something like Firefox ships with by default. So on some level I feel like "can I use this to read CNN" is not necessarily a great metric to use for an indie project, because if you're reading CNN it should probably be in Firefox with uBlock Origin installed (or something comparable, but I typically advocate that Firefox and its derivatives have better tracking protection than other mainstream browsers). In contrast, if something loads in this browser, what is your security risk? Limited MITM attacks and network analysis? I don't feel the same aversion I feel to most indie web browsers when I think about someone reading a limited number of indie web articles in this thing or building projects around it.