The Facts About Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-about-facebook-11548374613 <comment><USER2> I don't agree with a lot of the recent anti-Facebook narrative (much of it is prompted by the 2016 election), but I have always been a bit uncomfortable with the 'connecting people' thing he talks about here. Although I like when someone I haven't talked to since high school 'likes' a status update of mine, I don't actually want to be connected to everyone. If I go to a party I don't need my Uncle to see the pics. I think that is what is prompting declining FB usage among young people anyway, the fact that your Mom and your neighborhood grocery store owner is on there makes it different than what FB was ten years ago.

I also believe him when he says that Facebook doesn't purposefully host unseemly material that drives up engagement. Their newsfeed has always changed to reduce that kinda thing (app notifications circa 2008, clickbait titles circa 2011, infographics, quizzes, etc... they all have their run and then get tuned out.) Although Facebook has always been fanatical about growth so I guess it's more about long-term vs short-term engagement vs. not caring about engagement at all.

<comment><USER3> Looks like a classic non answer to me:

"Some worry that ads create a misalignment of interests between us and people who use our services. I'm often asked if we have an incentive to increase engagement on Facebook because that creates more advertising real estate, even if it's not in people's best interests.

We're very focused on helping people share and connect more, because the purpose of our service is to help people stay in touch with family, friends and communities. But from a business perspective, it's important that their time is well spent, or they won't use our services as much over the long term. Clickbait and other junk may drive engagement in the near term, but it would be foolish for us to show this intentionally, because it's not what people want."

So are you NOT showing that? Seems like FB has the outrage non-story click baits to drive the short term engagement with the "it's the ONLY place where my friends and family communicate" for long term.

EDIT: He says the automated removal can't catch everything. in the following paragraph.

Great, then remove the newsfeed until it can be AI cleaned to NON society destroying levels. Will definitely remove that short term engagement Zuck says he doesn't care about.

<comment><USER4> _Great, then remove the newsfeed until it can be AI cleaned to NON society destroying levels._

I've read a few dystopias centered around the idea that all friends and family members must be monitored to prevent socially undesirable communication. Some would argue that China is becoming that dystopia today.

No thanks.

I honestly believe Facebook is turning into scapegoat for the fact that, simply, your friends suck. "Facebook is full of outrage clickbait", eh? Guess who put it there.

<comment><USER3> I've read a few dystopias centered around technology corporations inserting themselves into the majority of communication and media access.

No thanks.

I was pretty sincere though. Just remove the newsfeed. That's the battleground for your attention and by far the most toxic part of the product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Facebook's been ramping up their censorship of their users to an unbearable extent. Apart from losing control of the situation when it comes to peoples' data, they're also losing control of their attempts to purge their own platform of things Silicon Valley tech giants frown upon on their own platforms. "Getting Zucc'd" is an internet meme for a reason.

I have friends who got suspended from the platform for 30-some days for posting pictures of their children to their own profile. Just children, doing children stuff. Not naked, not doing anything wrong or illegal by anyone's moral standards. I myself got suspended for 7 days by posting a completely apolitical, non-offensive joke to a private group that their system deemed evil. And then caught another 30 day suspension when I posted a screenshot of my suspension to my friends to laugh at how stupid the situation was. I've had enough of it. As personal as the experience is, before it used to be that people who were getting suspended had very easily understandable reasons behind it: when someone posted stupid, edgy stuff and got punished for it then at least you knew why it happened and acknowledged that it was fair enough. I understand that this is all anecdotal, but nowadays it's been very common to see my active friends be on timeouts. Why?

Facebook does not offer one iota of support for their users, be it when they get banned or have issues on the platform that a human should see. You're not getting through, clicking the buttons does nothing. Just like Google.

I have a friend who unfortunately attracted the attention of a mentally ill stalker, she was harassed and threatened for months by this stalker and his friends, she almost ended up committing suicide due to this. Our circle of friends reported this person to Facebook and they deemed it to be completely acceptable and allowed it to continue.

Not even mentioning the whole psychological experimentation crap they were doing with the goal of keeping people glued to their platforms by any means necessary, even if it means driving them into depression.

When people look at Facebook and the things that have been leaking out into the world, people don't care for any excuses anymore. And it might not be fair but they're giving Facebook the treatment they received. Even if the media sensationalises the whole anti-Facebook thing, a lot of people resent it for a reason.

I simply contacted my friends, left them alternative ways of contacting me and requested that my account be deleted.

Happy birthday to Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg. This is the 15th year of hollow excuses and empty, soulless explanations.

<comment><USER6> The comment point at one of two key aspects of the trouble with the platform. The company created something that no one could imagine living without, even as early as five years after the platform was created: a credible social identity online. In spite of that, people overlooked the benefits and focus on a deep, personal resentment.

The more widespread is context collapse, the idea that not everyone who knows you wants to know everything about you. See the comments below. That was something that Facebook was focused on in 2010-2012. Every attempt at personalising your audience failed. There was some ambitious effort to automate clustering of your friends by third-party but no one really cared enough to take over. Google Plus tried with their Circles. That excessive visibility led to less candid messages and less activity over the years, about two-thirds of the drop. Story was meant to compensate for that but didn't try to identify problematic relations explicitly. It worked on Instagram but more as a quality level than anything targeted. Messages and Groups have that role, and because it's not harder to create those elsewhere, it's easier to move away on Facebook.

The one that you mention is less widespread but indeed had a devastating effect. Facebook, like every company, has under-invested in "customer service" or in their case moderation. This had some seemingly isolated effects over random incidents but it didn't stop at one person's anger: their friends got increasingly disgruntled by the blatant unfairness. That expansion of isolated injustice explained the remaining third.

Those effects were documented, measured in detail. The first effect was denied by Mark, on principles. It took a Digital World War to start caring about the second.

<comment><USER7> Seriously?

While I can think of quite a few companies that have even less utility (Twitter, Netflix, Juicero, etc. etc.) but living without FB is not only imaginable, it's quite beneficial.

<comment><USER6> I don't think that FB itself is necessary, but many services rely on the ability to have a _cheap identity verification_. Let's take three examples.

Dating apps now almost all depend on you connecting either \- a social media account, almost universally Facebook in the West; \- credit card information. Not everyone is comfortable with that one.

If a user doesn't connect, most services implement some soft-gating to prevent abuses of trust. Uber, for instance, let an established user order a ride without having to input a bank card when their previous card was expired.

A large part of political communication relies on having a reliable proxy for an identity for campaigns. It doesn't have to be perfect but it can't have 50% of Russian sock-puppets. Even if Facebook Identity has been disputed, it remains far more reliable than, say, Twitter in that regard.

You might not use any of those services personally but you rely on people who do. A society where people can't find a partner because dating conventions are broken; where everyone has to own a car; where democracy is at the mercy of press barons -- that would be problematic.

My point was less that Facebook was the best identity, or irreplaceable (which is certainly not true; more than any other message, Mark Z. repeats all the time that Facebook will be replaced sooner rather than later). Google offers one that I think has strong software support, but less social proof. My point was that most people are unaware of the impact of having that option of a "Trust API", even imperfect. You didn't seem to.

Some people would prefer to have a government-operated identity or a bank- based one; those are actively developed in Nordic countries. I have used both and I'm in awe of what they unlock.

Some people (quite common on HN) hate the idea of depending on either and would prefer to rely on a system that they built or on have a choice of private solutions around a cluster of standards. OAuth is the best example of that vision. I'd love to see something more mature emerge (if anything so that not every website relies on the broken password authentication). But once again: even if the software works, I think the main benefit is less from token exchange and more from authenticity. I'm not sure that a cluster of service can guarantee that.

<comment><USER7> As I've mentioned, I do find Twitter even less "useful" than FB (and possibly even worse for the society at large), but while Dorsey come across as just a clueless, out of touch hipster, Zuckerberg comes across as not quite human automaton that performs experiments on humans. And FB is more valuable company, so that might be why they get picked on more.

But I am still not convinced that FB provides any service that is actually valuable, let alone good for society as a whole. I think it could well be argued that even under press barons et al democracy worked better than it has been lately. But then the cynic in me says that even robber barons had more decency in them than Zuck, Dorsey and their ilk.

Do we even need that _cheap identity verification_ especially as provided by social networks whose incentives are aligned completely orthogonal to societal good? As anecdata, I actually met my wife on a dating site with no benefit of any FB authentication (or credit card, for that matter). What would FB connection do there?

So no, I've never connected anything with any FB account, and I do not see that I am missing anything that _I_ would find the least bit useful. Obviously, HN tends to look for technological solutions for problems (or even in absence of problems) but farming out "trust API" to a commercial entity that aims to maximise engagement seems to be a prime example of a (bad) solution in search of a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A Pew study released last week showed that (among other things) 74% of Facebook users did not know Facebook was maintaining a list of their interests/traits, 51% were uncomfortable with it, and 27% felt the list was inaccurate: [http://www.pewinternet.org/2019/01/16/facebook-algorithms- an...](http://www.pewinternet.org/2019/01/16/facebook-algorithms-and-personal- data/)

<comment><USER9> This is consistent with what we should expect when most users still use the same password (or predictable variation thereof) for their bank/email/social logins.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hosting user-generated content in general is a mug's game these days. I wouldn't even consider launching a new startup in this space now and it's only going to get worse as the regulatory hammer comes down. I'm not a fan of Facebook at all but a lot of their current troubles are intrinsic to any platform that lets people post whatever they want.

</comment><comment><USER3> "People consistently tell us that if they're going to see ads, they want them to be relevant."

I am assuming the "people" he is referencing are the advertisers, not the users.

<comment><USER11> Would you prefer to see irrelevant ads instead?

<comment><USER12> I think we need to clarify some terms here. Advertising by its very nature is disruptive. It's goal is to interrupt you or grab your attention so that you look at SOMETHING and become aware of it, start to form associations, etc. There really isn't such thing is "relevant" advertising in the sense that ads pertain to my current activity, which, by the way, Zuck insists is "connecting to people."

The real question you're asking is: Would you rather trade some of your data so we can show you ads that you are more likely to click because we have ascertained that these value propositions are likely to drive some kind of an action? (And by the way action is all we really ever know, and is a so-so proxy for "relevance" or value to the user, c.f., clickbait.)

When you ask this question I'm inclined to say some users wouldn't consider this an awesome trade. That's being modest.

Disclosure: I make digital ads for a living.

<comment><USER4> _trade some of your data_

This seems a wrong and misleading way of looking at it. Facebook has the data either way, and advertisers aren't getting the data either way. You aren't "trading" anything; the algorithms can either show you something relevant, or show you something irrelevant.

Personally, I'd rather see something I might find amusing. I was about to say "it hasn't happened yet", but I actually have clicked on one FB ad (ever) - the mysterious package company, which actually does look interesting. Not enough to give them my money but still, it's a start.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Mark talks about the control that users have. I am disappointed that Mark didn't take the opportunity to simply link to that page. Too few people know about [https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/](https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/).

</comment><comment><USER13> in this PR piece the "political" point (by political I don't mean electoral, but power above communities and indivuduals) still miss. The algorithms decides what a facebook user will see. what become viral, what is trustworthy and what is not. this is never mentioned in the transparency promises, and still, transparency would not be enough (too many unaccountable variables in the neural network).

People should get chronological ordered content in machine readable format. client side, your personalization algorithm would decide which priorities give. I work for this, and I feel is there where the true challenge is. If you want to hack on this, please follow up on this comment.

</comment><comment><USER14> Do I really have to subscribe or sign in to read this article? No, thanks.

</comment><comment><USER15> Paywall bypass: [https://outline.com/tM3TCU](https://outline.com/tM3TCU)

<comment><USER16> Looks like outline disabled WSJ links, or at least this one. You can get full text by following the link from Mark's fb post: [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10106257635829431](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10106257635829431)

<comment><USER17> Works on my local :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A little trick I use is to give them my credit card number and they let me read their articles!

<comment><USER19> Could you please not post these? It's off topic, and breaks the rule in [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). Yes, the current situation sucks. But the issue has long been decided on HN because the alternatives are all worse. Someday that will presumably change and we'll all be better off for it.

Please review [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989) and [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20paywall&sort=byDate&...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20paywall&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0), and avoid taking HN threads on tangents that have been repeated ad nauseum already. I seem to recall that you've done it a lot, and you pretty much crossed into trolling below.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18994596](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18994596) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER18> How does my comment break the rules? I am seeing these statements in the link you provided:

> It's ok to ask how to read an article or to help other users by sharing a > workaround. But please do this without going on about paywalls. Focus on the > content.

> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users > do so

I am helping others to read an article and sharing a workaround. Can you clarify?

<comment><USER19> That's so contorted an interpretation that I think it's enough to just say it's not what we mean.

No more of this, please.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> there are many problems with this article. let us begin to unravel them.

problem one is claiming that this article is "the facts". it is not the facts. it is a PR piece.

the subtitle of the article is "We need your information for operation and security, but you control whether we use it for advertising."

but that isn't factual. you don't need my information. you need some people's information to make money. those people don't get to control how you make that money.

>Recently I've heard many questions about our business model, so I want to explain the principles of how we operate. I believe everyone should have a voice and be able to connect. If we're committed to serving everyone, then we need a service that is affordable to everyone. The best way to do that is to offer services for free, which ads enable us to do.

he starts by saying "business model" then starts mentioning non sequitors. he doesn't want to talk about the business model at all because it will make him look bad. he is intentionally conflating his product -- people -- with his customers -- advertisers.

>People consistently tell us that if they're going to see ads, they want them to be relevant.

no. nobody says this. nobody tells you this. nobody wants to see ads, ever. especially not ads which are derived from spying on their most intimate activities.

>That means we need to understand their interests

no. this is not factual. you need to understand their buying habits. furthermore, this is still not a discussion of FB's business model.

>The internet also allows far greater transparency and control over what ads you see than TV, radio or print

once again, this is a non-sequitor. furthermore, "allows" is a lie by omission. the technological capacity is there. but it is not exercised. and "transparency" does not equal control. and let's be honest: nobody has any control over what ads companies try to serve them with via e-stalking.

>On Facebook, you have control over what information we use to show you ads, and you can block any advertiser from reaching you. You can find out why you're seeing an ad and change your preferences to get ads you're interested in

a non sequitor, again. they harvest the information either way. blocking the advertiser does not block them from harvesting your info or finding another way to monetize it. the user's preferences regarding seeings ads are irrelevant because their preference is to never see an ad, which is not an allowed action for them to take because they do not have any control.

>Still, some are concerned about the complexity of this model.

no, incorrect, wrong. nobody is concerned about the complexity. people are concerned about the way facebook invades their privacy. a bad faith argument by zuck, to be sure.

>This model can feel opaque, and we're all distrustful of systems we don't understand.

no, incorrect, again a complete whiff of an answer. people are distrustful of companies who have an incentive to exploit them. everyone understands FB does not have their interests at heart, there is no ambiguity.

>For example, we don't sell people's data, even though it's often reported that we do

perhaps the biggest factual inaccuracy in the article; truly this is a titanic lie which nobody can even hope to unpack. suffice it to say we shouldn't even give his misrepresentation any consideration.

>In fact, selling people's information to advertisers would be counter to our business interests, because it would reduce the unique value of our service to advertisers.

again, a massive misrepresentation which is intentionally deceptive.

>I'm often asked if we have an incentive to increase engagement on Facebook because that creates more advertising real estate, even if it's not in people's best interests.

i think we all know enough about the addiction economy to laugh at this statement.

>And when we asked people for permission to use this information to improve their ads as part of our compliance with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, the vast majority agreed because they prefer more relevant ads.

implying that the users even understood what they were being asked to agree to is a hilarious mistake of something to say.

the rest is similarly bad.

it will be a joy to see facebook torn to shreds by regulators and abandoned by users. it is long overdue.

<comment><USER21> This is easily the most vacuous of all the comments here. You just take statements and call them disingenuous or obvious lies with not even a shred of backup

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm blocked behind a paywall.

<comment><USER23> copy and paste the link in google and load it from the search results

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "When I started Facebook, I wasn't trying to build a global company."

Why is he still saying this? No one is buying the dorm startup story anymore. You control world media, act accordingly.

<comment><USER6> He is saying that because he is regularly accused of having a financial objective, which isn't true. Like any moral claim, he can't prove it unless he gives all his money (which he has done, but somehow that hasn't worked) so he's trying to prove the purity of his intentions by their origin.

He's been very open about the influence on media and the responsibility that it gives him. Say what you want about his education, 'Noblesse oblige' the idea that having responsibilities demands that you act in a certain way, was very much a part of it.</comment></comment>


19-year-old Cory Levy raised $1 million from SV Angel et al - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/19/sv-angel-true-ventures-and-others-put-1-million-into-interest-based-connections-app-one/

<comment><USER2> I know this kid personally. All hype imo. He's got no discernable skill or experience. The only reason I can think of for why he got funded is for kissing up to certain high level angels since he was 15 and leveraging the age card like no other.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I don't know Levy personally but I know quite a few teenage entrepreneurs and I would have to say that it's definitely an advantage. Investors and others these kind of stories of the next Mark Zuck, gotta get them early you know.

</comment><comment><USER3> We were thinking about this months ago. Check it: [http://evolyte.posterous.com/get-notified-when-people- with-s...](http://evolyte.posterous.com/get-notified-when-people-with-same- interests)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> sounds like another geo social app

</comment><comment><USER4> Isn't this kind of the direction LAL was headed?</comment>


Ask HN: Has that black line always been up there ^^^? - <AUTHOR>

Is this a Neu-Googlification of HN? <comment><USER2> You could use the search function before asking this, I must have seen about 10 posts about this today... Actually, someone died and it's to show some respect : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2712469>

<comment><AUTHOR> I did look but didn't see anything.

I didn't realise there was a search. I've been looking for it for years. Somehow I've managed to miss it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Its only been up for about a day.

</comment><comment><USER4> black bars are becoming popular...there`s another company that added one recently</comment>


Ask HN: Database for storing machine learning data? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for a database that can efficiently store and retrieve a very large number (billions) of structured datapoints for use in machine learning. Each datapoint can have an arbitrary number of categorical and numerical attributes and belong to one or more datasets.
I want to be able to quickly (ideally in several seconds at most for result sets with 1.000-1.000.000 datapoints) select datapoints of a given dataset and possibly filter them based on their attribute values, e.g. formulating queries like "give me all datapoints belonging to dataset A for which x < 4.5 AND category = 'test' AND event_date >= '2009-04-10'". Once written, datapoints will not change, though I would like to attach additional information to specific datapoints (e.g. test results or additional labels), which could be done in a separate data structure or table though.
Right now I'm solving this using a simple PostgreSQL database with auxiliary index tables, but I'm looking for more scalable alternatives.
I've considered software like Cassandra or Clickhouse but I'm not sure they will fit my use case well. Do you have any recommendations or did you realise such a system in your work and can provide some ideas or guidance? Thanks! <comment><USER2> I use ClickHouse for analytical purposes and I managed to ingest with very modest hardware up to 5 million rows per second. I stopped there but with more multiple jobs I might achieve even more. Queries and export are very fast too. At the moment I cannot think of anything better for this. Let me know if you need extra info.

</comment><comment><USER3> Define quickly. One minute, one hour?

What is the downstream use? To train, label?

<comment><AUTHOR> I clarified that now, thanks. Multiple use cases e.g. selecting datapoints for training or testing as well as to analyze statistical properties of specific datasets. So retrieving individual datapoints should be possible as well. Once datapoints are written they will not get updated, if labeling takes place it would probably be done in another structure that gets linked to the datapoint.</comment></comment>


A Chat with PixelMe - <AUTHOR> https://blog.satismeter.com/a-chat-with-pixelme-8d0b2274599c <comment><USER2> PixelMe guys are on fire, I see them everywhere these days :-) PixelMe reached $10k MRR in 12 months without investment, and raised $1.3m in Dec 2018.

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/19/pixelme- raises-1-3-million...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/19/pixelme- raises-1-3-million-for-its-retargeting-url-shortener/)</comment>


The Consumerist Church of Fitness Classes - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/my-body-is-a-temple/547346/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> What the ...

Okay, that's crazy talk. That's the role that clubs have always had.

"Exercise classes often function just as much like a church as they do like a gym: They gather people into a community, and give them a ritual to perform..."

We can say the same thing about square dancing in the mid-20th century. Or going to your local bar. Or quilting bee. Or .. you get the idea.

""I think I've figured out what [people are] really drawn to, and that's the community aspect of it"

That's almost exactly what my salsa teacher said is the reason that people take salsa lessons.

Only, without the "better, harder, faster, and more" emphasis.

<comment><USER3> You're exactly right. the metaphor is strained through repeated, unsubstantiated invocations of "ritual, ritual ritual."

Yet only one activity is given: exercising together. The span of rituals doesn't apply to life changes such as birth, puberty, pair-bonding, death, etc. The span of shared values doesn't reach morality, communication, family life, money habits, ecological stance, etc. It's _only_ about time and money for a fitter body.

As far as promoting capitalism? Also strained. yes, you pay to take the class, just as one pays for any activity. That is certainly consumerist, yet consumerist is not always capitalist. There are no activities promoting usury, group ownership, abdication of responsibility through legal entities, or even markets which are features of capitalist society. And _these are_ the features of capitalism we ought to be critiquing. These are its harmful facets. Paying to take part in an activity isn't leading us to feudalism, lifetime indebtedness, massive inequality in quality of life. It's a distraction and underestimation to indict exercise classes when there are _real_ robber barons out there.

As far as "mimics the form of religious services?" I don't see the invocation, offering, the sermon, the reading of traditional literature. Sure there is special clothing and music, but like you say, same with square dancing and, hell, almost any human social activity.

> "often subtly discourages people who are overweight [...] from attending.

Seriously? The entire marketing propganda can be summarized as "get fit!" which _implies_ the consumer is overweight.

I think the author is struggling between making observations and reading too much into things that aren't there without spending enough time in the everyday.

<comment><USER4> To your point— sport clubs were popular in the Soviet Union: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Sports_Societies_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Sports_Societies_of_the_Soviet_Union)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How did we get to the point where simply buying something is a bad thing? And meeting people in your community while getting healthy is also frowned upon, too?

<comment><USER6> > How did we get to the point where simply buying something is a bad thing

Nothing new here. Consumerism has been questioned by most religions and philosophies. (for good reasons.)

> And meeting people in your community while getting healthy is also frowned > upon

I remembered when I moved to the US from Europe, I was surprised to see how fitness was such a huge industry. In my country, we tended to practice sport in some types of non-profit associations. (even though US-style gyms are on the rise.)

I liked this much better than going to the hassle of dealing with membership fees and an agressive commercial structure. In particular, it was also much more friendly than your regular gym. Students stayed on average much longer than in a gym, and they were involved in running the structure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if this person has actually been to a church.

Churches are much more communal in my experience, it's not unlikely to end up drinking coffee and chatting with people, while at a gym, people often go in, do their workout, and go out.

<comment><USER8> Ever been to a crossfit gym? Its as communal as any church. The author is referring to "boutique fitness" like CF, soul cycle, barry's etc. Not typical "globo gyms" like Planet Fitness and others.

<comment><USER9> Ah yeah, the team building and communal aspects of CrossFit are encouraged

Too much cult like for me though

(Though I think CrossFit does a lot of things right, like no endless boring "cardio" exercises and having actual strength training)

<comment><USER10> It depends a lot on the gym you choose. Some CF gyms are extremely RAH-RAH- MILITARY and hardcore focused on competitions, they swallow the "party line" hook, line and sinker.

Others (such as the one I use) are a lot more informal and use the WODs and such as examples and suggestions for workouts, and are very good at scaling the routines for those of us with a bit more mass to heft around. The "fittest on Earth, no room for weaklings" thing may be appealing to some people, but it also raises the bar for entry needlessly high.

<comment><USER8> This was just posted on the mainsite fb page: [https://www.facebook.com/crossfit/videos/10154940743797676/](https://www.facebook.com/crossfit/videos/10154940743797676/)

I think most affiliates are like mine or yours these days. Supporting competitive athletes but overall focussed on serving the broader population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mark Greif's "Against Exercise" offers a much more thorough criticism, e.g.:

"Today we really can preserve ourselves for a much longer time. The means of preservation are reliable and cheap. The haste to live one's mortal life diminishes. The temptation toward perpetual preservation grows. We preserve the living corpse in an optimal state, not so we may do something with it, but for its own good feelings of eternal fitness, confidence, and safety. We hoard our capital to earn interest, and subsist each day on crusts of bread. But no one will inherit our good health after we've gone. The hours of life maintenance vanish with the person."

I'd post a link, but I don't think a public one exists. You can read the whole essay in his "Against Everything" compilation.

<comment><USER12> This discounts the enjoyment of a heathy body and a good workout. It's like complaining about people eating food.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article is a puff piece where the author tried to make a connection where there is none.

I took fitness classes for awhile and taught them for 10 years. Most organized fitness classes except for cycling were so choreographed that you could never get in the zone because you had to spend so much time thinking about what to do next and keeping up with the instructor.

I found the people taking the classes to be so judgemental at the higher end clubs and corporate clubs. They would not take classes if the person teaching didn't "look" like an instructor. I didn't look like the typical instructor - I was short muscular and aggressive. But that was a benefit.

<comment><USER14> Before Les Mills commoditized everything, teachers did their own choreography. And it was a lot more interesting. Some teachers had amazing musical interests. Ok, some didn't too. But now everything is mediocre.

That aside, I agree with the _ritual and community_ observation. But the music is so awful I drifted away to the weight room. Yeah, I do a 5x5 program (on an iPhone app) which is very simple to follow but the lifting itself is quite meditative. I was surprised.

<comment><USER13> It was a part time working hobby for me. I did my own choreography, mixed some of my own music with CoolEdit (bought by Adobe became Audition) and I saw the writing on the wall. Everything became about Les Mill and dancing. My simpler, athletic style of teaching became less popular and I had neither the time nor inclination to learn other people's choreography.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've always thought of crossfit as combining the best community aspects of religion with rituals that actually deliver on what's promised..

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't see what's wrong with getting together with others and trying to improve oneself. Sure you can overdo it, but that is all part of growth. This article seems a bit overly cynical.

<comment><USER16> It kills me a little to see them say overdoing it, there are so many factors at play and intensity of workout is only one variable. No mention of diet, sleep or programming...

I think the author touches on a fair point, people want to push themselves harder than they should, but it's not going to kill you and your body is going to put a stop to it whether you like it or not. Seems to me author is just generally naive about fitness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My religion is Phish. It's a massive cathartic ceremony, and with the correct chemicals, I hear the angels.

I get what they're saying. It's dumb to restrict spirituality and even "religion" to certain institutions.

<comment><USER18> Spirituality and Religion are not quite the same thing.

Even hearing Angels is not necessarily very religious (and of course, we may hear a lot of things with chemical help ...).

Spirituality is a personal, intellectual, possibly experiential thing.

Religion often entails cultural overhead, community, and generally a lot of work: those who have had the opportunity to 'see angels' have the responsibility of then promoting their new understanding in the world, living as examples to others yada yada, i.e. it's mostly hard work and heavy cross- bearing, i.e. 1% inspiration (seeing angels) and 99% perspiration (being a good person, which is hard).

<comment><USER19> _" Spirituality and Religion are not quite the same thing."_

Exactly. I've been saying this for years to anyone who asks me if I'm religious. I say "no, but I am spiritual". I reject the notion that God takes attendance every Sunday and doesn't like me eating meat on Fridays. I also find zero need for organized religion. Spirituality is something different.

But, hey, if the religious thing works for other people, then have at it. It doesn't work for me, but maybe it does for them.

Spirituality doesn't require religion, just as getting in shape doesn't require a gym membership or a group class.

<comment><USER18> "Spiritual but not religious"

Maybe you missed my point?

I'm kind of saying spirituality is easy, less practical part. :)

The 'work' of spirituality is hard. It's often done through religion.

Crazy point: those who 'religious and attend services' are least likely to commit crimes, but those who are 'spiritual but not religious' commit the most! Sorry no reference. Point being, we are creatures of habit, and action speaks louder than words.

I guess there is a lot of theological debate about whether or not it's more important to 'have faith' which is a matter of spirituality, or to 'go to church and be a good person' ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can see this more as I'm going less to fitness classes and going more to the gym.

I go to the gym to work out but it also relieves stress as I often enter my flow state and am very meditative. I find its very easy to think once you're working out very hard and entering a routine. I also find thinking about developing new features keeps me semi-distracted from all my physical tiredness and keeps me going.

In many ways, theres a spirtual dependence on the gym for me.

</comment><comment><USER21> By that logic you can call nearly any group activities "religious". Dumb article.

</comment><comment><USER22> This reminds me how muslim preachers condemned coffee houses because they would draw people away from mosques.

</comment><comment><USER23> Atlantic articles are now mostly indistinguishable from satire

</comment><comment><USER24> Who cares what the motivations are. If people are getting more exercise that can only be a good thing.

<comment><USER25> The point is that more than exercise is involved. Getting exercise does not require an expensive membership in a club.

<comment><USER24> Well sure there are ways to exercise without a club membership. But having access to a facility with good equipment, instructors, scheduled classes, etc sure makes things a lot easier. It's all about removing obstacles and encouraging people to make good choices.</comment></comment></comment>


Firefox and Flux: A New, Beautiful Browser is Coming - <AUTHOR> http://www.donotlick.com/firefox-and-flux-a-new-beautiful-browser-is-coming/ <comment><USER3> I really don't want to be negative, but every browser update in the past year feels like a step back. This is true for Chrome and Firefox. Each update contains more "Sign in to your browser" stuff plastered everywhere. Eye candy is added. Useful configuration options are removed.[1] Many of these changes seem to be made with the goal of increasing revenue, not improving user experience.

Rule #0 of business is: Listen to your users. For browsers, one straightforward way to do this is to look at what extensions and addons users install. By far, the winner is adblock. Almost everyone who knows how to block ads does so. Therefore, if you are making a browser and you care about user experience above everything else, you will have ad blocking by default. That no major browser does tells us what their priorities really are.

Again, apologies for the negativity. This has frustrated me for some time.

Edit: I realize that if everyone suddenly started blocking ads, there would be darkness and chaos. But the current situation is only tenable because a small fraction of users have the know-how to get what they want. You can avoid ads if you are technically proficient or know someone who is. Everyone else has to put up with ads. Advertisers annoy millions if not _billions_ of people, effectively subsidizing the usage of those with ad blockers. That doesn't seem fair to me.

1\. Such as the old new tab page in Chrome: [https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=326788](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=326788)

<comment><USER4> > one straightforward way to do this is to look at what extensions and addons > users install

Oh God No! I do not use adblock. I use noscript and im happy with it. I also do not use "Video DownloadHelper" which is the second most used addon. And neither do I use Firebug which is #3. Please do not put all this stuff into my browser! And not everybody uses noscript which I use and which is #4. Im completely fine with installing it.

How about improving on the basic stuff? For example make FF use all cores of my machine and not just one?

<comment><USER5> > For example make FF use all cores of my machine and not just one?

They are working on it: [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis)

This is already in the nightly version for some months: "File > New e10s Window" will open a new window in its own process.

<comment><USER4>
        File > New e10s Window

Wow! Nice. Thanks for the info!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> These people behind Australis are brave, competent and passionate. It shows in the remarkable experience they've built. I am a nightly user and I got to see these changes land one at a time. Hugs and cheers:)

<comment><USER7> > brave

I am not trying to be snarky, but to me a lot of the new UI is "oh, they made it look more like Chrome". I am kind of surprised to hear the word "brave" to describe that.

<comment><USER8> Work on this UI started long before Chrome. That's Chrome that looks like Firefox mockups, not the other way.

<comment><USER9> Can you source this from public docs somewhere? It's interesting and I'd love to compare the early mockups with early chrome.

<comment><USER10> Not OP but earliest concepts I know of are these¹ from 2011.

1: [http://people.mozilla.org/~shorlander/ux-presentation/ux- pre...](http://people.mozilla.org/~shorlander/ux-presentation/ux- presentation.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There seems to be quite a lot of wasted space in this new design. For example:

[http://www.donotlick.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/tab- shap...](http://www.donotlick.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/tab-shape- alt-01.png)

1\. The curves of the 'aerodynamic' tabs sacrifice pixels in the horizontal ramp-off / -on whereas old 'ugly' rectangular tabs can abutt.

2\. A vertical void above the tabs, too shallow into which to put icons.

I'll have no choice but to become accustomed to it but I fear my little 12" screen will become even less efficient.

<comment><USER12> I believe that for (1), the tabs overlap so that they take the same amount of space as the old tabs. It's an illusion that they're larger (which I initially fell for also, until I was corrected).

(2) is the same as Chrome and older Firefox versions - to ensure that there is still some draggable area in the window when it is filled with tabs, and it disappears when the window is maximised.

<comment><USER13> You're right about (1), I took a before/after screenshot (top: FF28; bottom: FF29): [http://i.imgur.com/AJlgeBZ.png](http://i.imgur.com/AJlgeBZ.png)

Please note that I normally use tree style tabs ([https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style- ta...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/)) to put the tabs in a sidebar. It may have messed up the layout a bit. (also, the non- standard colour comes from ColourfulTabs)

<comment><USER14> I noticed that you used to use the URL bar on top layout as I did. Sadly that is gone now but the Classic Theme add-on will give you the option back.

To me it's just more visually intuitive to have the tab right above the content window, not over all the toolbars. I really can't fathom why the reverse has become the default.

<comment><USER13> Actually I put them my tabs on the left (default option with tree style tab), as I feel that putting them at the top or bottom of the browser waste space. I put the tabs under the location bar out of convenience, my purpose was to look at the difference in the tab size.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Claims to be detail obsessed but the Mac version has the close/shrink/zoom buttons floating at the wrong height (like iTunes 10 briefly had until it recanted) and a title bar gradient with non-standard color and height (too short for integrated toolbar height and too tall for basic window title bar and too light in color for either) above a toolbar with the same weird gradient used again.

Windows and Ubuntu versions look much better; the Mac version should be fixed.

<comment><USER16> I think they lowered the close/shrink/zoom buttons so that they'd be roughly centered relative to the height of the tab container. If they didn't do this, it'd look weird and unpolished. As for the other things IDK. I still think it looks really good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been surprised by the amount of hate for Australis. Are the people who criticise it actually using it?

I've moved back from Chrome to Firefox and I'm a big fan of the changes that they've made. A lot of clunky interface elements have been eliminated. I really like the customisable menu - it's a much better place to put semi- frequently-used add-ons than has been available in the past. The same paradigm works nicely on mobile, too.

The next things to tackle are probably the bookmarks and options dialogs, both of which are a bit of a pain. Chrome's searchable options were a game changer, and Firefox needs something equally easy-to-navigate.

<comment><USER18> I agree. I actually began using Firefox again because I heard this UI change was landing in Nightly, and I've been using Nightly since then. I get Chrome's UI minimalism and Firefox's customizability/flexibility - it's the best of both worlds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well if you don't like the beautiful browser there's a way to get the old layout back.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/classicthemer...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/)

Actually more precisely it lets you completely customize the look.

Want to have square tabs? Can do, can even have the round tabs.

Want to have the url bar at the top? no problem

<comment><USER20> I don't want a beautiful browser, I want a functional browser - I generally want to focus on the site I'm visiting, not the gorgeous UI.

The fun part now is wondering how long Classic Theme Restorer will be maintained. I give it 2 versions before it falls by the wayside.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.donotlick.com/firefox- and-flux-a-new-beautiful-browser-is- coming/&client=firefox-a&hs=EDM&rls=org.mozilla:en- GB:official&channel=sb&strip=1)

<comment><USER22> [http://archive.today/4ZGpR](http://archive.today/4ZGpR)

Fully rendered cache with images.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The killer feature in Chrome was and is the multiprocess implementation. I use Firefox for intranet browsing at work and Chrome for personal browsing: the former is a sloth compared to the latter, and hangs even for seconds when loading a big page whereas Chrome will happily use as many of my 12 cores as it likes and it just doesn't even slow down.

Firefox has had their comparable hack (Electrolysis?) in some prototype stage for a long time but the thing is Chrome actually delivered it... _years ago_. This turned the roles into a catch-up game where Firefox tries to match Chrome instead of other browsers trying to match Firefox, and the setting has remained as such since then.

The difference is still astronomical and I'm not at all convinced that a new user interface could have much effect there. The browser UI has pretty much standardized 15 years ago.

<comment><USER24> Am I the only one that _doesnt_ like this "feature"? The reason I dont like it is because now, instead of being limited to 25% of my total CPU usage, at times Chrome happily pins all four of my cores. Granted that this is probably a result of poor plugin/webpage interaction (although, I havent been able to determine what combination...being a heisenbug and all), in Firefox, the worst case is still 25% maximum CPU usage.

<comment><USER25> If you have four cores and really want so that Chrome can only use one of them at a time you can just start it with

      taskset -c 0 google-chrome

or maybe better

      taskset -c 0-2 google-chrome

which will allocate cores 0-2 to Chrome, dedicating one core for your other work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've been using it for a couple months now. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't care too much about how Firefox looks. I actually quite dislike curved tabs, but I can live with it. What frustrates me the most is that I don't want to wait for the fancy animations to finish before doing something. If I want a menu to come up, I want it to come up.

Most of the menu reorganizations have very little affect on me since I usually use shortcuts. But waiting for some of these animations just hurts my productiveness and I've seen other people share my dismay. When changes like this hurt the people who know how to use their browser and want to simply get things done, it's saddening.

<comment><USER10> Mind sharing what these animations are? I haven't noticed any that I have to wait on.

You may find some relevant prefs at: about:config?filter=animate

<comment><USER26> A number of the menus. When I switched, I found the RSS feed dropdown mind- numbingly slow. I've since made a userChrome.css edit which I saw on Mozillazine. Even then, there's still other animations left over. I find it really distracting.

Another more minor change was, prior to this version, Firefox still allowed fixed back and forward buttons. At some point, I should probably find a fix for that as well. Animations are supposed to make the experience feel smoother, but from my point of view, it's simply more clunky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is the lack of a unified search/address bar a deliberate choice or the result of some weird IP/patent thing? Every time I switch back to Firefox, it trips me up. AFAIR, it's the only major browser that still does this, right?

<comment><USER28> There might be other reasons, but a big one is that having search and address bar in one box means that normal URLs you type into the address bar will get sent to the search engine for autocomplete by default. Since that's a major privacy violation, they're kept separate.

I've removed the search box myself. If DNS doesn't return anything or if what you type looks like a search query, it does a search anyway, so the only thing I'm missing is search autocomplete (there's an addon if you really want that anyway: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/instantfox/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/instantfox/)).

<comment> Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 The privacy reason honestly seems like a post-hoc justification... you can easily turn off auto search in Chrome. If you were really anal, you could do what IE does and actually _ask_ the user for permission before hitting the search engine. There is really no reason why the search bar has to be kept separate, other than user comfort. And that is not a bad thing: there is no need to start making up excuses for it.

<comment><USER22> Even if it's turned off you can leak information. Mis-type a local hostname and suddenly your secret URL is public to Google. I've done this more than a few times.

<comment><USER29> That's a different setting. You're looking for "Use a web service to help resolve navigation errors"

<comment><USER22> Different again actually, it's just a failing in the detection of hostname/search term which I couldn't find a setting to disable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I really ask myself why they insist to put the tabs on top. With todays widescreen-displays, putting them left or right makes more sense for most use cases (at least with FF its possible to get this via add-on). OTOH they try to get rid of every pixel to get a bit more space while there are lots of at the left and at the right. Do all developers only work on 13" laptops today?

<comment><USER31> Absolutely. Having the tab placement customizable is something I miss from the Opera.

<comment><USER32> You should check out Tree Style Tab [1]. I always have a lot of tabs open and I can't live without it. It lets you choose where to put the tab bar, among other settings.

[1] [https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/tree-style- tab/](https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/)

<comment><USER33> It would be better to choose a simpler add-on, such as the ones recommended by the Tree Style Tab developer at [http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_treestyletab.html.en](http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_treestyletab.html.en), in the section "Similar or Related Extensions".

> _I want a simple vertical tab, without tree features._

> Vertical Tabs > ([https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/108862/](https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/108862/)), > VertTabbar > ([https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/8045](https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/8045)) > or Vertigo > ([https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/1343](https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/1343)) > can do it.

Tree Style Tab has lots of bugs for me, like permanently hiding the navigation bar after I exit full-screen, and scrolling all the way to the bottom of the tab list whenever I restore a closed tab. I still use it because I love being able to organize my tabs hierarchically, but if someone only wants vertical tabs, they should choose a simpler add-on that is less likely to have bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Regarding incremental UI changes, I recall reading that Google staged Chrome's tab style and color redesigns over multiple releases, presumably to avoid upset users. I'm not sure whether to admire their concern for user confusion or to feel like the dupe of some magician's sleight of hand. :)

Unfortunately, I can find that page now.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why have reverse tabs won? Has anyone done any usability test on them? On OS X, with a space left for the hit area of only 10px tall, it's really hard to drag a window that uses them. For context, 10px is about half the cursor's height.

I can see a reason for them on Win/Linux, but I find them completely unfit for the Mac. I guess people just maximize the window and leave it at that.

On the other hand, I'm glad there's still a distinction between the search box and the address bar. The annoyance of omnibar mistaking a url for a search query and vice-versa, even admitting it's a rare event, is not worth the trouble to me. Besides, educating the user on such difference seems important to me.

<comment><USER36> > Why have reverse tabs won?

What are "reverse tabs"?

<comment><USER37> The parent is implying that safari style tabs are the proper version, and that chrome, Firefox, and IE are using 'reverse tabs'

<comment><USER35> Actually, Chrome invented them and everyone followed.

Safari is just the only one that didn't.

<comment><USER38> Firefox had this long before chrome was even out...

<comment><USER35> [http://www.blogcdn.com/downloadsquad.switched.com/media/2007...](http://www.blogcdn.com/downloadsquad.switched.com/media/2007/11/firefox3_tabswitch2.jpg)

And IE7: [http://winsupersite.com/site- files/winsupersite.com/files/ar...](http://winsupersite.com/site- files/winsupersite.com/files/archive/winsupersite.com/content/content/127198/reviews/ie7_b2_review_02.jpg)

<comment><USER10> [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=2600816](http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=2600816)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I like it, but I'm seeing some serious similarities to chrome. If I had not seen this announcement and I quickly glanced at those screenshots, I would not think it was Firefox.

<comment><USER40> yes but believe it or not, the new firefox UI/UX has been in the works for so long and chrome's development so quick that it seems like firefox was inspired by chrome when in fact that didn't happen

<comment><USER41> I'm a Firefox developer and I don't think this is true. As far as I know, most of the key elements of the Firefox 29 theme redesign emerged after the last major UI redesign (Firefox 4) was released in 2011.

<comment><USER42> Can I ask you why Mozilla removed so many useful customisation options for australis?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The new UI looks really solid to me. FF's current UI has felt dated for quite some time now, and this is the overhaul it needed.

</comment><comment><USER43> Its hilariously sad how new UI skin is touted as reimagining the whole browser.

Opera had fully customizable UI 12 years ago? And look at us now, somehow we moved back in functionality, even Opera nowadays is nothing more than a bad non-customizable Chrome skin :(

I dread the day most of the web stops working on Opera 12.16. I wont be even able to tune Chromium to my specific needs, after all it requires 16GB of ram to compile now (and that number will probably grow).

</comment><comment><USER44> Have been using most of these things in Nightly. It's a pleasant experience. :)

</comment><comment><USER45> Cached version here: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3QAbOyV...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3QAbOyVw9BsJ:www.donotlick.com/firefox- and-flux-a-new-beautiful-browser-is-coming/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Opera's recent ui change atleast had a purpose.. they were trying to innovate and bring forth the browser features that their stars determined people use most.

Firefox here. As far as I can tell is just saying "ok we decided to shuffle the buttons around again"

Haven't been using firefox since they switched their patch number schema. But I still feel a little sad seeing them seal their own fate.

</comment><comment><USER47> "Mozilla releases update featuring curved tabs with brand new radius"

</comment><comment><USER48> So many changes nowadays.. isn't there anything that remains the same, something we can rely on in this chaotic world lol :'(

Anyways, I was hoping the 'zooming' and 'back/forward page swiping animation (on a trackpad)' would be improved, to be more smooth/sexy like it is in Safari on OS X. Unfortunately this hasn't been changed however..

</comment><comment><USER49> Just restarted FireFox and it seems to be here now. I don't think I like the UI of inactive tabs, but the rest is fine.

<comment><USER50> I agree, the inactive tabs are not very distinguishable or readable and starkly contrast the active tab's light grey when using a darker color theme on Windows 8.1. Everything else seems great so far, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The post goes to great lengths to say they're doing a big, meaningful overhaul instead of a UI tweak. However, the examples given are nothing more than a bunch of tweaks (and not necessarily ones I like). It sounds like someone is trying to build up hype over nothing.

</comment><comment><USER52> The only reason I use Safari is the beautiful smooth as butter pinch to zoom.

</comment><comment><USER53> Are there any functional changes other than moving some buttons and menus around a little?

I like Firefox and will continue to use it, but I just don't see what good this update is supposed to accomplish.

<comment><USER12> Almost no new features, other than some flexilibility with the new Firefox menu (you can add extension buttons to it, for instance).

Lots of customisation options have been removed (with the justification that it prevents inexperienced users from 'breaking' the browser), like the navigation buttons being locked to the address bar, the inability ability to move the refresh button (urgh) and the addon bar. Most can be restored though the Classic Theme Restorer addon, though it broke another of my addons last time I tried it.

<comment><USER53> True, the new Firefox menu is much improved, but there still seems to be no way to access it via the keyboard so it will probably remained largely unused by me.

I like the new placement of the real menu bar (when enabled), much better than in the previous versions.

<comment><USER12> I actually think that the orange 'Firefox' button was an important part of the browser's branding. Sure, it was blatantly stolen from Opera, but it meant you instantly could tell which browser someone was using. I think moving that functionality to the new menu button was a mistake, and it makes the browser look a lot more generic/Chrome-like (and is also against all existing windows conventions which says administrative functions should be in the top left).

But, in terms of day-to-day usage, its location doesn't really matter much.

<comment><USER54> actually that one button appeared in firefox designs much before opera - <USER2> was a big drama about it back then. opera had the same design but released much faster than mozilla did.

back in the days they didnt have 6 week releases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> So, is Flux the new name for what they've been calling Australis?

<comment><USER56> Either or that, or just meaning 'firefox and change'.

I read that as F.lux being incorporated somehow, and was very confused :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Please don't take this the wrong way, but what are you doing with your browser?

Up until a few years ago, I used an oldish single core processor and I never had any problems with the performance of a browser.

For the past few years I've had a dual core processor, and I still have never had any performance problems, despite being on the internet for hours each day.

The only times it's even remotely a problem, is when I try out some HTML5 demo that runs the Unreal Engine through my browser, or something like that.

<comment><USER58> Rapidly (manually) opening, switching between sometimes 20 tabs always brought FF to a crawl for me and is the reason why I always switched back to Chrome after giving a new FF version a try for a week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> If they are so obsessed with details, how did they miss that some people need bookmarks star, but not the bookmarks menu button. For some (I'm sure completely arbitrary) reason, it is impossible to decouple these two buttons in Firefox, so instead of a little star in URL bar you get a honking huge two button combo that takes like 6 times as much space (which is even more limited in Australis since no addon bar).

</comment><comment><USER60> Bookmarks sidebar button and Add-on toolbar...nope, no one uses those AT ALL. Now I have all that shit in the upper right-hand corner instead of lower left, near Start Menu in Windows and have to use keyboard shortcuts to get to bookmark sidebar, again in Windows. OS X I'm more adept with keyboard shortcuts but monkey trained to use what he's been using last fucking decade in Windows.

</comment><comment><USER61> As long as it is faster than Chrome (in every possible way), I'll switch back to it. Every second counts when people are on not-so-fast wires.

<comment><USER62> I find a clean install of Firefox to be almost as fast as Chrome, and in some places more responsive - particularly when opening the browser. Chrome will get the basic UI up on the screen very fast but take a moment before you can interact with it, Firefox is usable the moment it is on screen, even though that time is slightly longer).

Chrome does have preloading of certain things which make loading some things faster although there are addons that can replicate that on Firefox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's with the purple cupcake at the top left?

<comment><USER63> A pinned tab:

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/pinned-tabs-keep- favori...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/pinned-tabs-keep-favorite- websites-open)

<comment><USER16> Oh nice! That's one of my favorite features in Chrome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> It looks absolutely terrible having addon icons crammed into the same bar as everything else. What's the problem with the addon bar? There's even less view pane area now because the top area is so large.

The active tab curve is feminine, not in a good way, but I can live with it.

It does feel faster though, maybe they broke some addons that were slowing it down. Time will tell.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can add another bar in the customize menu and put add-ons on that bar, if you prefer!

<comment><USER64> How do you add a bar or spacing or separators?

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe you can't using the Customize UI, but for a hacky solution you could add spaces in bookmark titles, like this: [http://cl.ly/image/2Q2b3L3c061a](http://cl.ly/image/2Q2b3L3c061a)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> does anyone know how to hide the navigation bar? (for vimperator users) apparently they removed the option to hide it.

<comment><USER66> [http://i.imgur.com/Ueqq29i.png](http://i.imgur.com/Ueqq29i.png) is what my current vimperator browsing window looks like (ff27), the new changes make this very difficult to replicate via changes to userChrome.css, but hopefully, as it gets more exposure, these things will get ironed out

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> A bit of topic here. But does anyone know of any browser that has the URL- field and bookmarks 50/50 on the same row? I don't really need to see the full URL at all times, and I only have small amount of bookmarks. On top of that I use a fairly small screen, so it would be great to combine them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, you can do this in Firefox 29! Click the Customize hamburger-button on the right and then click "Customize." Drag the search bar from the menu bar down to the tools page. Then drag "Bookmarks Toolbar" up next to the URL bar. It should display as your bookmarks, listed next to the URL bar. Here's how it looks on my machine: [http://cl.ly/image/1M3N3L0h3v1s](http://cl.ly/image/1M3N3L0h3v1s)

<comment><USER67> Neat. I might just go ahead and try it then and hope for it to come to Chrome at some point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Edit: Remove unnecessary snark.

It is still frustrating that a bunch of plug-ins appear to have been disrupted because of removing the add-on/status bar, though. Not everything has moved to the new location automatically, and it's not immediately obvious how to get some of them back.

<comment><USER28> I just installed JS Switch on Nightly and clicked the Menu(burger) icon, then Customize, and was able to drag the JS Switch button into my toolbar.

(This does not address that it's crappy that icons that were in the addon bar don't, say, automatically get put into the toolbar or trigger a message notifying you how to get them back or anything, but oh well. EDIT: According to another reply this may not be the case with all addons, seems like some automagically get moved.)

<comment><USER68> Thank you, that did work for me as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> You can already download it using the official link

[https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-29.0&os=osx&la...](https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-29.0&os=osx&lang=en- US)

(change osx with wath you ned)

I assume they will update the website very soon

</comment><comment><USER70> Has anyone figured out how to get the tabs below the address bar again? This is horrible. I'm not really sure how to describe my hatred of this but it is there. I love FF but if the tab bar can't be moved I think I might have to switch to Safari.

<comment><USER71> Is there a browser.tabs.onTop preference in your about:config? Should be set to false.

<comment><USER72> Even if it is there, it no longer works. Australis is tabs-on -top only.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> While Australis is neat, doesn't bother my experience much since I use pentadactyl heavily and most things seem to just work™.

My pet bug still lays untouched though. [https://bugzil.la/444284](https://bugzil.la/444284)

</comment><comment><USER74> > Gone are the bulky angles and edges of tabs and menus. In Firefox 29, you'll > see streamlined, almost aerodynamic, curves giving emphasis to your current > tab and subtly understating the rest.

5 years after Google Chrome introduced them [rounded tabs]

<comment><USER75> Horizontal tabs are so 2007. ;-) I'm still waiting for Chrome to have a vertical tabs solution that's as good as Tree Style Tab for Firefox. Tabs Outliner and other Chrome extensions are inadequate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Have they tested this design on users? Did they make the records public?

<comment><USER77> Thunderbird has been using a variant of the Australis theme (rounded tabs, menu button in the right) for over a year.

Firefox for Android also has been shipping with a similar theme for quite some time.

So I suppose they've had ample opportunity to see how people react to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> "The Firefox UI is a moving target. It is under constant 'improvement', which means 'change' which means every few months I'm forced to upgrade it and shit has moved around and I need to re-learn how to do a task that I was happily doing before. This does not often happen with Safari. Their UI has been remarkably stable for many, many years."

[http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead- of-...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of-firefox/)

<comment><USER12> That's not entirely fair - the last major Firefox design change was with Firefox 4.0 - back in March 2011.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> I am finding the new version to be snappier than usual. I like it. Now please make the developer tools as good as chrome's.

</comment><comment><USER80> I thought that they are switching to servo, but it turns out that they have redesigned the interface?

<comment><USER81> Servo's progressing well (it can render Acid2 now without problems) but it's missing a bunch of features that are pretty essential for a modern browser. It's absolutely still at 'research project' stage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Already used these features in Nightly build

</comment><comment><USER64> Firefox really hates the users who like it because it's customisable and only caters to minimalist-preferring Chrome users who will use Chrome anyway.

</comment><comment><USER83> looks good, I'll have to try it out. Chrome has been acting up for me lately.

</comment><comment><USER84> It's still a browser from the people who allowed a mob to push Brendan Eich out because he donated money to support a political cause that was and is not only legal but reflective of the views of a large minority of Americans. It's pretty, but I think I'll pass.

<comment><USER85> I believe exactly the opposite of this. I use Firefox in no small part due to ideological reasons (ie: I would use it even if it wasn't the best, just because I like the values they allege to stand for), and if they had let the CEO get a pass I would have literally uninstalled it and looked for something else.

<comment><USER84> I'm not surprised to find that there are people who disagree with me. I'm pleased, however, to hear that you would have acted on your convictions.

<comment><USER54> im surprised people choose to use or not use firefox depending on the ceo. the ceo doesnt take many decisions, the whole community does. some of them paid, and many unpaid.

by taking these - IMO - baseless decisions, you're only hurting the thousands of people putting their time, blood and tears without any commercial interest into firefox, not the ceo's you agree/disagree with.

remember that mozilla has no shareholders, the ceos dont get stock options, just a salary. its wholly owned by the mozilla foundation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Looks like Opera!

</comment><comment><USER42> ...and here's a contrasting opinion:

[http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/30903/355158.aspx](http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/30903/355158.aspx)

Australis is removing configurations options for absolutely no reason. If people want chrome, they'll use it. I don't care if mozilla want to ruin the default as long as they give people who want a normal browser a way out, but instead they are removing everything they can get their hands on.

Firefox is dumbing down. That's fine if it's IE, Chrome or Safari where the majority of users think said browser _is_ 'the internet', but Firefox is for power users. People who like their privacy, who want to customise their software to their own use case, and who are rapidly running out of options in a world filled with shitty software that assumes the user has a room temperature IQ, removes options and metro-ifies everything while primarily existing to make money off your private information. Even Mozilla are not only dumbing down, but switching to privacy invasion mode with in-browser ads, and replacing their secure sync with one that drops it all on their servers presumably unencrypted as it works with a basic username/password.

Classic theme restorer: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/classicthemer...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/)

What we really need is a fork of Firefox.

<comment><USER87> > What we really need is a fork of Firefox.

The Pale Moon and Cyberfox browsers are forks of Firefox and they will not merge the Australis UI. I'm already using and liking Pale Moon, it's still not on par with Opera 12.17 though but is better than Firefox.

I'll see how Australis looks like on my boxes, but I'm not very hopeful: I like having a proper menu bar, tabs at the very bottom of the window, and a status bar, I couldn't care less for a touch-like interface on a desktop where I have a functioning mouse and keyboard.

<comment><USER72> > The Pale Moon and Cyberfox browsers are forks of Firefox

Those are hardly anything more current source codes complied differently, with a few switches flipped here and there, certainly not real forks.

Also, the only reason many of these so called Fx "forks" do not ship Australis is because they are on the ESR line.</comment></comment></comment>