Warner Bros does not get all of the $363 million at the box office, the theatres takes their cut. For domestic gross it's said to be roughly 50/50 during a box office run, with the distributor (in this case WB) getting the most during the first week, and then the theatres get the most, for Foreign gross it's much less, with China only giving 20% of the box office to foreign distributors.
Also the $200 million production budget does not include promotion/advertising.
So it's very unlikely that Tenet made a profit at the box office, however there's streaming deals, physical media etc which can earn a pretty penny, particularly if something becomes a cult classic. Blade Runner and Starship Troopers were box office failures having has made lots of money afterwards.
Jpeg-XL makes use of Brotli, and once it hits 1.0 it will most likely be turned on by default in browsers and thus you will probably see a lot of jxl in the wild, particularly since it provides lossless recompression to existing jpeg files with ~20% smaller size as a result.
Another strong feature is the great upgrade path from existing jpeg files, which can be losslessly recompressed into jpeg xl with an additional ~20% compression.
At this point I don't really see a reason for AVIF, hardware accelerated decoding could be a benefit, but AFAIK there's no device supporting it.
A very obvious one is that by adding another language, you are adding more complexity.
It's not as if C is going to disappear from the kernel as it's something like 25 million lines of C code, and if Rust was to be supported, the current C experts who are maintaining various subsystems will now also have to become Rust experts, so that they can effectively accept or reject code contributions in that language.
Personally it just seems illogical, better to make a new kernel in Rust is you really want to use that language, than converting small parts of a HUGE C kernel. Google has been pushing for the inclusion of Rust into the kernel, it's weird that they are not writing their own shiny new Fuchsia OS kernel in Rust, instead of C++.
It's funny how frequent people bring this up, but the truth is simple, check here [1]. Zircon kernel is not new [2], it has been in development for a while now. By the time the started to work on the microkernel, Rust 1.0 was really new, so they would've to implement several things from ground up. There's a implementation of Zircon in rust called zCore [3], but I don't know how stable and feature complete this one is.
>Selling drugs / buying sex are transactions at the expense of someone else’s body.
So how does porn fit into this picture ? Porn actors are selling their bodies, what's the difference between a person having sex in private for money, and someone doing the same while filmed ?
I am actually glad that they came out and put that in black and white. Got me to move to another browser. (I do miss Firefox's multi-container tabs and account containers however but I will survive).
I really hate how people just read the title of this post, got offended, and just constantly link it to say "See guys? Mozilla wants to censor you!" when that's not what the actual post is saying. It is almost guaranteed that whenever someone posts anything Mozilla-related, people bring this up, possibly with an invitation to switch to Brave or something.
The article is specifically trying to criticize social media without sounding like Mozilla is siding with the Capitol rioters. If you want to argue that it's a bad headline, sure - people's continued misreading of it definitely is evidence of that. If you want to argue that it's Mozilla "showing their true colors" and calling for Facebook and Twitter to take over the government or whatever, then I will disagree with you all damned day.
74MM ppl voted for someone who used to be President and is now permanently banned from all social media platforms. This article agrees with that. If you were one of those people, you would not want to associate with this company.
And Donald Trump isn't an ally of Internet freedom - if anything, he's been in favor of letting social media companies para-censor what they want. He called Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet", so he clearly also doesn't care if Comcast censors things. Furthermore, the GOP has traditionally been in favor of "private companies can say what they want and you should have no legal recourse for that". As far as I'm concerned, him getting banned from Twitter was him getting hoist by his own petard.
There's also the related problem that any reasonable free speech protections that apply to private fora would almost certainly not have protected Trump here. Twitter had an explicit policy of letting Trump off the hook for things that would ordinarily get you banned, even things like copyright violations. (Yes, Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone had DMCA immunity.) If we had regulated Twitter like a common carrier, they wouldn't have been allowed to have this two-tiered world leaders policy. So Trump would have been banned in 2017 instead of 2021.
I really can't think of a way in which Trump stays on Twitter without some massive intrusion into the way the Internet runs. Either you...
1. Require private fora to not have any speech rules - in which case we turn the entire Internet into USENET/4chan and anyone not as spammy/toxic is para-censored by being talked over
2. Require private fora to not enforce speech rules against world leaders - in which case you've taken away the platform's right to free association without any of the benefits of common carrier regulation
I don't see how either of those improve freedom online. Given that Mozilla's non-profit arm has a stated goal of protecting user freedom, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not have any particular sympathies for Mr. "Obamacare for the Internet". The best Mozilla can do - and what they actually did - is argue for transparency and regulation on how social media companies use their power to shape public discourse.
Mm it’s a tricky situation. Ideally the free market would solve it by coming up with another service with an alternative moderation strategy. Which may yet still happen. In 50-100 years maybe Twitter and Facebook will no longer dominate and alternatives will emerge. I think there is a big resistance to big tech that will only grow and ideology of social media company employees and leaders will balance out.
Because big tech is controlled by liberals they can get away with this stuff without repercussion. But it’s quite obvious that if this happened in reverse...which there is plenty of precedent throughout history...you would see the left complaining.
The reasonable person would think: this is a bad precedent to set and it’s the reason we allow free speech because if the tables turn on the censors, they wouldn’t like it.
Liberals outside of the US find it troubling too.
Anyway, let’s hope the free market solves it in the end. I think tech ideological diversity is changing too for the better.
This has happened in the past and liberals and leftists have complained rightfully.
If anything, I'd say the last decade or so has been right-wingers sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the oncoming train liberals were warning them about didn't exist, right before getting hit by said oncoming train.
You are correct that "big tech is controlled by liberals" (I'd also include libertarians here as well), but in order to be anywhere close to consistent and get what you want you need to also embrace at least some left-wing or libertarian ideas about money and power. Any one of the following viewpoints are reasonable:
Left-wing: Ideological diversity should be allowed up to intersectionality and social media companies should be regulated like common carriers
That Mozilla blog post: Somewhere between the "left-wing" and "left-libertarian" viewpoints.
Left-libertarian: People should switch to federated Mastodon instances run on the basis of mutual aid (e.g. recurring donations or P2P technology) and centralized social media platforms should be recognized as harmful and shut down
Center-libertarian: Something like NearlyFreeSpeech's "Morons Funding the Fight Against Morons" policy, in which we sell server hosting to neo-Nazis and then donate all the profits we made off them to organizations that fight neo-Nazis.
Right-libertarian: People should outcompete monopolistic social media platforms with less paracensored versions and the government should take no action (This appears to be what you're advocating for, although in practice I've seen this tried and fail multiple times)
What isn't reasonable is the right-authoritarian approach, which is to just complain about "being censored" when it happens to only you, and then threaten to repeal CDA 230 if the platforms don't change their mind. (Don't get me started on left-authoritarians, or I'll be here all damned day.) That's not free speech by any definition - either the strict "Congress shall make no law" approach or the more general considerations of paracensorship that I'm trying to build a theory of speech rules around.
Thanks for the insights. I like the more nuanced spectrum you present. I find myself too often in a simplistic left/right divide. I think there is great value in a more fine-grained spectrum coming into common usage.
The conundrum that stands out for me though is when one group defends another group’s right to censor, and then that group uses that right, to censor the other. I think that’s where we are today. The legislative restraint of the Republicans to regulate seems they are living up to their principles to their own disadvantage. But this just leaves them to be taken advantage of by the other group to the point of severely damaging the next election prospects of Trump runs again.
Will defenders of freedom always be subjugated to those who want to use freedom to restrict others? Sustaining this freedom is the challenge of humanity and a very careful balance. We’ve seen so many free countries fall to left/right authoritarianism over the ages. It’s almost like we cycle back and forth between authoritarianism and freedom. This century will surely be a big test.
I think we are quickly heading into left authoritarianism which is ironic because the most vocal complaints are of right authoritarianism which I really didn’t see any evidence of the past 4 years. It was just a trendy thing to say. I don’t even know where the accusation of Trump authoritarianism began.
IMO the title of this blog post was way to strong to even misleading.
They're not asking for deplatforming, they're asking for more transparency:
Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.
Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.
Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.
Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.
I disagree with your assessment. I will illustrate why by using 2 specific points from the linked post:
1. From the post: "Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms.
Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken: [...]"
My interpretation of the above is that they support deplatforming ("silencing or permanent removal") AND "additional actions".
2. They mention "white supremacy". I believe that is a false premise. I am not white/of European descent. I will leave it at that since this is going OT.
with chromium/ungoogled chromium/maybe other derivatives, you can put multiple browser profiles to ~/.config/chromium and add --profile-directory="xxx" to exec path
Braver user here: I can add multiple profiles through the GUI - which I use to separate my Google usage from my general internet usage. Is this not supported by base Chromimum?
I might have missed it, but I don't think it was back when I was looking for equivalent of Firefox's `-p` command line arg a few years ago. I did however end up setting up a dedicated launcher for every Firefox profile as well instead of using `-p`
> It was clear when they forced Brendan Eich out for having a mainstream political opinion.
That's when I stopped using Firefox. It wasn't that Eich's opinion was mainstream. He kept it to himself and never imposed it on anyone at Mozilla. Free Software stands on Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Inquiry, and Freedom of Expression. Mozilla developers and outsiders conducted a propaganda campaign to justify a witch hunt, showing their disdain for honest discussion and respect for community members of different backgrounds. No one was allowed to question the premise that supporters of Prop 8 on religious grounds were automatically dishonest bigots and unworthy of associating with Mozilla.
Instead of persuasion, Prop 8 detractors preferred vitriol, revenge, and punishment. The silencing of dissent, the witch hunt to out prop 8 supporters for vilification - the things done in the name of social justice were far worse in social consequences than Prop 8 could have ever been, and we are the worse for it.
On my phone, I moved from Firefox to Brave. The overall experience is much better.
I don't know about democratic compensation, but I don't regularly hear about Brave making political statements or picking sides, which matters to me. I still get ads blocked, and I experience far fewer issues.
The only issue I have with Brave (and any other Chromium-based browsers) is the memory consumption, it's definitely worse than Firefox on that front. But at least they're looking for ways to improve their browser like they've done with their ad system, integrated Tor and IPFS.
> It feels like it's just the top brass getting as much money they can before the ship sinks at this point.
From the outside it really is hard to not come to that conclusion.
I'm still a Firefox user and I'll continue to be as long as possible, but like others I feel immense frustration when I look at the dynamic between Firefox and Mozilla.
What exactly did he do ? From what I've gathered he gave out cards which was basically an invitation to a date with him should anyone be interested, and he made a very ill-concieved statement regarding harm from children having sex with adults. A really stupid comment but hardly something that would warrant this kind of response, at least unless he doubled down on it.
The initial push that led to his resignation from the FSF board came down to some comments supporting Marvin Minsky, who was an associate of Jeffery Epstein. This, combined with anecdata about RMS having a history of crude and insensitive comments was too much for a lot of people.
Note that I'm not taking a side here, I'm mostly summarizing the below article:
Also the $200 million production budget does not include promotion/advertising.
So it's very unlikely that Tenet made a profit at the box office, however there's streaming deals, physical media etc which can earn a pretty penny, particularly if something becomes a cult classic. Blade Runner and Starship Troopers were box office failures having has made lots of money afterwards.