Middle class is disappearing in California as wealth gap grows - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/412928-middle-class-is-disappearing-in-california-as-wealth-gap-grows <comment><USER2> The author cites a variety of statistics regarding California's government programs and poverty rate, then draws the completely unsupported conclusion that the one creates the other. Generally, the conservative argument against taxes and regulation is that they handicap business and consequently hurt economic growth. It's hard to make that argument for California, which has had one of the strongest state economic growth rates in the nation despite being the largest state economy. Faced with this clear contradiction, the author simply dispenses with any kind of coherent theory and simply takes as a given that California's poverty must be due to taxes and welfare programs.

<comment><USER3> California does not have particularly strong economic growth. From 2003 to 2013, it slightly trailed the country in GSP growth per capita and personal income growth: [https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/infogra...](https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/infographics/2015/05/sr152/bgredstatesbluestatestable3825.jpg). (To calculate GSP growth per capita, divide the GSP growth column by the population growth column.) More recent data also shows pretty middling results: [https://www.bea.gov/news/archive?field_related_product_targe...](https://www.bea.gov/news/archive?field_related_product_target_id=461&created_1=All&title=&=Apply). Adjusted for cost of living, California's income level is about in the middle too: [http://i.imgur.com/WdfQqJR.jpg.[1]](http://i.imgur.com/WdfQqJR.jpg.\[1\])

The idea that California is a prosperous state is a myth. California is a very expensive state, with higher salaries that do not compensate for the cost of living. And it has a few very rich people (in tech, entertainment, etc.) that don't do much to move the needle on averages.

[1] One can debate the relevance of the cost-of-living adjustment for engineers making $400k/year, but in the middle class salary range, where groceries and rent make up a bigger fraction of expenses than toys or savings, cost of living is a driving factor.

<comment><USER2> According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the US Department of Commerce, California is in the top ten US states for per-capita GDP growth since 2009. Not 'middling' at all, particularly considering it was the country's largest state economy to begin with. And a big reason the cost of living is high there is precisely _because_ the economy has been so good. The middle class hasn't been hurt by taxes and regulations, it's been hurt by low wage growth as the top 1% of the population has absorbed a grossly disproportionate share of the robust economic growth. The same problem shared by the rest of the country. Taxes aren't too high, they're much too low, particularly on the wealthy.

Not sure where your numbers came from (the link at the bottom of the image, referencing a report at alec.org, is broken).

<comment><USER3> The specific ordering is somewhat sensitive to the specific date ranges. Looking at the BEA data: [https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0616gsp/inde...](https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0616gsp/index.cfm)

If we use 2009 to 2015 as the data points (which is the most I have on this chart), the following states grew faster than the U.S. average:

        North Dakota	1.37
        Texas		1.16
        Oklahoma		1.16
        Michigan		1.15
        Ohio		1.13
        Pennsylvania	1.11
        Indiana		1.11
        Nebraska		1.10
        California		1.09
        Iowa		1.09
        Minnesota		1.09
        Tennessee		1.09
        Wisconsin		1.08
        Massachusetts	1.08
        Illinois		1.07
        Kentucky		1.07

I wouldn't call growing at about the same rate as Iowa and Tennessee as being particularly exceptional, even if it's technically in the top 10.

More important, because cost of living continues to explode, California continues to be middling in terms of purchasing power: [https://spectator.org/adios-california/](https://spectator.org/adios- california/) (California 37th in GDP per capita adjusted for cost of living). For real people, that's the most important benchmark of economic health. (Which is why when you're comparing _different countries_ , you always use PPP-adjusted numbers.)

Note that this particular problem isn't something you can fix through redistribution. California's COL-adjusted GDP per capita being in the middle means that, no matter how you distribute it, California's _on average_ just can't buy as much stuff (food, housing, etc.) as Iowans.

<comment><USER2> _I wouldn 't call growing at about the same rate as Iowa and Tennessee as being particularly exceptional, even if it's technically in the top 10._

I would. Iowa and Tennessee are much, much smaller economies. It's truly remarkable that California, with an economy ten times larger, can nonetheless grow at a comparable rate.

While it's true that the cost of living is higher (in large part because the quality of life overall is higher), it is simply not true that "it doesn't matter how you distribute it." The subjective experience depends quite a lot on how it's distributed. I assure you that millions of middle class Californians would be much happier if their wages had grown even half as much as the massive increases taken by the top 1%.

<comment><USER3> > I would. Iowa and Tennessee are much, much smaller economies. It's truly > remarkable that California, with an economy ten times larger, can > nonetheless grow at a comparable rate.

No it's not. California's economy is larger simply because it has more people. That doesn't make it any harder to grow the economy further. According to the same BEA data, the Great Lakes region as a whole (which has a population comparable to California) grew faster than California. If your theory were correct, it should be much harder for the U.S. to grow than France, and for France to grow than Sweden. But that's not borne out by the data: [https://snbchf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/GDP-Per- Capita...](https://snbchf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/GDP-Per-Capita- Developed-Nations1.jpg)

(If California's economic production _per capita_ were much higher, you might hit "diminishing returns" effects, but that's not the case.)

<comment><USER2> _That doesn 't make it any harder to grow the economy further._

Nonsense. Economic growth depends on a complex web of law, culture and resources. Large economies _are_ systematically harder to grow than smaller ones. It's not simply a matter of adding people. It _is_ in fact harder for the US to grow than France, the fact that it actually happens doesn't negate that reality. Remember, the fundamental argument you're making is that California operates under a handicap because of its taxes and regulations. It should be laboring under both that burden _and_ the additional inertia that comes from a larger economy. I think its growth (not to mention the historical success of the rest of the industrialized world, virtually all of it more socialized than the US) belies the conservative old wive's tale that you can't have a stable, growing economy and maintain a sensible tax and regulatory environment at the same time.

<comment><USER3> I'd be very curious to read a citation for that assertion.

> Economic growth depends on a complex web of law, culture and resources

If anything the opposite is true. Larger regions create economies of scale in these areas. A company can amortize the cost of complying with California laws over a much larger market than Iowa law. A product targeted at California cultural trends has a much larger market than one targeted to Iowan cultural trends. Historically, the size of the US internal market has been a huge benefit compared to smaller European countries.

<comment><USER2> It's harder to grow a large economy for all the same reasons it's harder to grow a large business (percentage-wise) than it is to grow a small one. Sure, there are some economies of scale. But in the end, there are always fixed components to growth that are less dependent on size, and those less elastic components are necessarily more significant for a smaller economy (or company) than for a larger one.

Going back to the original point of my criticism, even if you regard California's growth as merely average, that doesn't explain how that modest growth has resulted in the middle class squeeze. Any loss incurred by the middle class as the result of tax or other government policies pales in comparison to the massive loss of the wage increases that should have accompanied even modest growth. The problem is clear: left to its own devices, the market doesn't distribute growth in anything like a fair (by value actually contributed) manner. Wealth, in and of itself, creates a huge advantage in capturing new growth, and that advantage is nowhere counterbalanced. Money naturally runs uphill until some kind of catastrophe interrupts it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Despite having just 12 percent of the national population, California represents nearly a third of all Americans on welfare. [...] In Texas, 6 percent of families in poverty receive welfare. In California, the figure is 66 percent. "

I don't know how welfare works in USA, but if it's a federal level program, it would seem California is pulling a pretty clever hack there.

<comment><USER5> > I don't know how welfare works in USA, but if it's a federal level program, > it would seem California is pulling a pretty clever hack there.

Welfare isn't a program, it's many different programs, almost none of which are fully federally funded, and where (because of its strong aggregate economy despite poor distributional features) California gets less federal cost sharing than most other states (the absolute minimum) in most components that are partly federally funded with a variable federal share. California also has some of the most expansive state (or local) funds only welfare programs.

And, bottom line, California pays more federal taxes than it gets federal spending, unlike lots of poorer states; in summary, it's not hacking anything here.

Also, the 6 vs. 66 number for Texas vs California is almost certainly using the federal poverty line, not the local CoL-adjusted poverty figure as the base universe. California, on average, has a much higher cost of living than Texas, or the US as a whole, and so the comparison doesn't actually represent those actually _in_ poverty.

<comment><USER3> On the new supplemental poverty measure, which accounts for cost of living, California is at 19% and Texas is at 15%: [https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-265.pdf).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > '"Not In My Backyard" development and construction restrictions mean that > California cities are much more expensive for the poor'

Don't agree with the rest of the article but this is the crux of the issue. Banning single family zoning in urban areas like Minneapolis is doing would be a good start. The hypocrisy among liberals when it comes to housing is just astonishing. Nothing epitomizes this as when the Mayor of Berkeley who independently joined the Paris climate accords called a pro-housing bill an attack on their way of life [https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/01/22/berkeley- mayor-wiene...](https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/01/22/berkeley-mayor-wiener- skinner-housing-bill-declaration-war-neighborhoods).

</comment><comment><USER7> I can't tell if they think they vast numbers of people in California working in tech, research, academia etc are working class, or upper class. Both seem ludicrous ideas.

<comment><USER8> The argument made in the piece is that there is increased polarization between the haves and the have nots. Successful professionals are haves.

I don't know what nuances the term "upper class" has historically had in California; perhaps it's not the right word for those earning (as little as) a hundred thousand a year. But the idea that there is now a privileged socioeconomic group which no longer blends, at the low end, into the traditionally larger middle class and lower middle class seems like a clearly testable proposition.

In other words, the claim is that the middle class is evaporating and tech professionals are left on the wealthier side of the gap, typically earning "upper class" salaries.

In the UK, a huge proportion of the population identifies as working class, somewhat bogusly. Tech workers tend to be part of what is sometimes called the "technical middle class", a new (post-WW2) and slightly wretched group with little cultural or social capital but strong finances. Ramen-eating programmers are in the technical middle class even if their earnings haven't yet matched those of more established professionals.

I agree that both "working" and "upper" are anachronistic categories.

<comment><USER7> I think if you're working a job and earning a salary or a little equity, then you're clearly middle class at best.

I think it's the working class that's being eroded, leaving the a middle class on one side, and the destitute on the other, with the upper class being the same as it ever was.

<comment><USER8> Well, the Pew research organization puts everyone who earns above a certain amount in the upper class. It's about 100k. And we know that the rich have got even richer in the last few years, with a thinning of the "middle" earners. There are plenty of articles out there which focus on the erosion of the middle class.

As I mentioned, some people (in the UK for example) are invested in the idea of the working class, and draw the class boundaries between working and middle so as to enlarge the working class. Often this is about preserving their own identity rather than assessing the wealth of different social strata. But living in relative comfort has been a middle class thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> URL redirects to thehill.com

</comment><comment><USER10> This is really an oddball collection of bad news (although it does properly add context to the %-of-population numbers). This bad news is well worth repeating, though there's plenty more.

However it's hard to understand the point of the piece. The author describes herself as a libertarian and wrote a book calling taxation a rip off. Yet the only real analysis seems, to my reading, to claim that more government would help. It seems especially at the end that she is criticizing unregulated capitalism.

(for context: I consider CA to be one of, if not the, best run states in the Union, despite its manifold problems and failures. And while like anyone I could easily make a list of rules I think should be eliminated, I hardly think the blanket libertarian position of "less regulation" is any sort of solution).

</comment><comment><USER11> Non-AMP link: [https://thehill.com//finance/412928-middle-class-is- disappea...](https://thehill.com//finance/412928-middle-class-is-disappearing- in-california-as-wealth-gap-grows)

<comment><USER12> Changed from [https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/finance/412...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/finance/412928-middle- class-is-disappearing-in-california-as-wealth-gap-grows%3famp).</comment></comment>


Memes on the Blockchain. Good idea or bad idea? - <AUTHOR> Imagine a meme app where the memes are stored on the Blockchain.
the memes will be moderated before they go onto the blockchain to make sure it is appropriate content, but the memes going on the Blockchain will be submitted by app users only.
I can try to ensure this by requiring authentication from Facebook, Google, or any other suitable identity provider(s). I would only need some unique identifier to ensure that a person is who they say they are. I simply rely on this service to ensure that an account is a real person and not a bot.
I can create some ability blacklist users, so that if a user is found to be a bot or regularly posts inappropriate memes, the user and their posts will be marked as blacklisted, and the app will not display that content any more.
I could use Ropsten Ethereum and IPFS in Combination. This way the app would be free to use.
This way the list of memes displayed can be an immutable record of truly user generated content that would be available to everyone. All users will be able to look at memes and post memes from anywhere they can access the blockchain.
Once put on the blockchain the record of memes can not be retroactively censored because the blockchain would ensure that the records are distributed.
If you're have any questions, feel free to ask.
P.s. there is no crypto currency involved. This app is simply taking advantage of blockchain technology. This app in question will be available for free. Transaction on the blockchain will be on the free-to-use Ropsten ethereum blockchain, and image files will be stored on IPFS. <comment><USER2> I think it's a good idea. I'd look into eventually putting the memes on an Ethereum sidechain that enables low/zero cost transactions, like one of Loom's DappChains or the POANetwork.

Ropsten is fine to start off which, but a testnet can't be relied upon to be stable.

Also, I'd look into making the memes non-fungible ERC721 tokens, to enable transferrence/trading.

</comment><comment><USER3> What value does a blockchain serve here? Is anyone asking for a distributed meme ledger?

<comment><AUTHOR> The intention of the blockchain is to provide a feed of memes to user where the memes aren't tailored for each user unlike things like Facebook which proactivly show you the content you want to see to keep you on the site for longer. You would only see the memes in a category you subscribe to. Think of it like a distributed social network based on memes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What about making something useful instead

<comment><AUTHOR> What did you have in mind? I'm working on this as a side project. It's a fun way to spend my spare time.

<comment><USER5> A good way to measure what this person means would be removal cost: how harmed is society if this category of solution is removed from it one day?

<comment><AUTHOR> Cryptocurrencies are a joke in my opinion. Given all the hype around blockchain technology, people have chosen to champion crypto coins as its main use. But blockchain simply allows for a variable to be stored. That's all cryptocurrencies are; A variable that only you own and can only update based on some rules.

Blockchain provides a public data store. That is what I am using it for. Maybe memes are not the best use-case for something like this, but it's a start. Imagine if instead of memes you stored something else... For example: news articles. You could have a permanent uncensorable record of news articles. Would this be useful? Of course the argument can be made. Why don't you just rely on news organisations websites. Why don't you just rely on the information shown on your Facebook feed. Etc.

The main problem with such centralised systems, is that you have to ask if something like this is valid for an international audience. Would the memes you see in one country, be the same in another country? The same case stands for the news articles example.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


European Parliament votes against net neutrality amendments - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34649067 <comment><USER2> "It is thought that many MEPs would have been reluctant to begin a process of amending the regulation given that it might have delayed another aspect of the rules - the abolishment of mobile data roaming charges."

That probably should have been the first paragraph of every article (8th in this one) about these amendments. I can see why a politician would value abolishment of mobile data roaming charges more.

<comment><USER3> How about making smaller laws? First do one abolishing the roaming charges, and don't slow it down by attaching anything else to it. Then do another with the net neutrality stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem here is that this was badly put together legislation. I don't think the idea of net neutrality was actually debated at all in reality. The need to abolish mobile data roaming charges in the EU was front and centre of the needs of these MEP's constituents minds and they would not vote this down, it would've been mad for them politically. Whoever wrote this piece of legislation is to blame here.

I would be very surprised if this didn't come back for debate in another form prior to it's adoption.

<comment><USER5> That's not how it works. Amendments to the proposed law are voted individually, there was never any danger of having to reject the whole law.

There were amendments to close each of the problematic loopholes regarding net neutrality, but they didn't pass the vote.

<comment><USER6> There is if the set of legislators that are in favor of the end to mobile roaming charges doesn't overlap exactly with the set of legislators in favor of net neutrality. In that case, the number of people who vote in favor of the package might be the intersection of the people in favor of the two things, which is strictly smaller than the set of people in favor of one or the other.

Classic poison pill maneuver.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We are experiencing speed problems to many servers. Our broadband is BT Fibre. While accessing some sites is very fast, sometimes others are slow.

For example downloading from Bitbucket from the UK is peaking on 600kB/s, then after a minute, it's dropping to 60kB/s, then stays there for the following 15 minutes.

The same content downloaded from one of our servers in a UK data centre stays on 600kB/s.

I think this is a clear evidence that the service provider is cutting the bandwidth after a minute, which is not what we paid for.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Can you switch to Andrews & Arnold? They're a niche ISP in the UK, targeting tech-savvy users and businesses. They give you IPv6 for free and they're XKCD/806 compliant. (No affiliation, just a happy customer when I lived in the UK.).

<comment><USER8> I was too cheap to use them when I was in the UK, as they cost a bit more, but the other guys I worked with rated them really highly. I would pay the extra for them these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're not sure if you should be pissed at your MEP, here are the votes (PDF): [http://bit.ly/1NydR8L](http://bit.ly/1NydR8L)

It's from page 19, Pilar Del Castillo Vera section.

<comment><USER10> Why hide it behind a link shortener?

Direct link is here: [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML%2BPV%2B20151027%2BRES- RCV%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0//EN&language=EN)

<comment><USER11> How do you read this document?

<comment><USER12> For an amendment, you have three sections: the "+" section lists people having voted for the amendment, the "-" section lists people having voted against, the "0" section lists people having abstained

Only the surnames of the MEP are listed. They are listed inside their political group. The two biggest groups in European Parliament are PPE (European People's Party, centre-right) and S&D (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, centre-left) See this list of political groups: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_groups_of_the_Europe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament#Composition_of_the_7th_European_Parliament)

<comment><USER13> Looks like the PPE and S&D didn't disappoint and voted en masse against it. Sigh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> At first I was very sad when I read the article.

However I hope that we, as European, could take this as a challenge and come out with a way to completely obfuscate the web traffic, wich I believe will be extremely important in the coming year.

We should see this as an opportunity, maybe we won't come out with the next Netflix, but hopefully we will be able to to set the standard for privacy and security online, so needed right now...

<comment><USER15> Essentially, if it is not encrypted, corporations can fight for regulation to increase the barrier to entry for rival products and services, and we know they will. If it is encrypted, such regulations are futile.

<comment><USER16> But only the non-paying corporations have an incentive to encrypt. The ones that pay will either not encrypt, or they'll attach some kind of tag to the ISP saying where the packet comes from. ISPs can safely assign all encrypted, non-tagged packets to the slow lane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So how do they explain refusal to correct obvious anti neutrality parts of this "neutrality" legislation? By too much money from ISPs in their pockets?

</comment><comment><USER18> There's lots of competition in Europe, so net neutrality doesn't matter. It's just extra government regulation in an area that doesn't need it. Think of it as a symptom rather than a problem.

<comment><USER19> What about the other side? - the next potential Netflix competitor probalby won't come from Europe with regulations like these.

<comment><USER20> I think this can be blamed on the strict European copyright laws more than a lack of net neutrality, also considering that Netflix became what it is today even without net neutrality

<comment><USER19> That's not what I meant - it was just an example.

The above comment only considered the perspective of an end user, saying that due to good infrastructure and lots competition net neutrality isn't an issue. However I'm more worried about the businesses at the other end of the line, the content and service providers who also have to deal with ISPs. If the market leader in a certain category can afford to buy faster lanes, it's much harder for potential competitors to enter the market, hence the Netflix analogy.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Consumers should thank Apple for its walled garden - <AUTHOR> http://techland.time.com/2011/11/14/the-consequences-of-apples-walled-garden/

<comment><USER2> This seems completely disconnected to me. Why should we 'thank' Apple for the walled garden, if the walled garden is unable to protect the security of the people inside?

Miller was only caught because he displayed the vulnerability in a presentation. Had he not done that, his app would still be in the app store, and he could be malicious in using the security whole to access data of those who installed it.

How does the author jump from the security whole being exposed and Miller being kicked out, to this being a good thing because Apple is 'protecting' their users. The users weren't protected.

Worse, I think people expect the apps in the app store to be safe, but it appears apple is unable to guarantee this.

When downloading an app from the web, I think their is a bit of an understanding that the app may not be secure. But I thought part of the reason for the approval process was for Apple to ensure everything was safe. The App store is Apple's seal of approval.</comment>


Ground-Penetrating Radar - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar <comment><AUTHOR> >"Archaeology

Ground penetrating radar survey is one method used in archaeological geophysics. GPR can be used to detect and map subsurface archaeological artifacts, features, and patterning.[7]

GPR depth slices showing a crypt in a historic cemetery. These planview maps show subsurface structures at different depths. Sixty lines of data – individually representing vertical profiles – were collected and assembled as a 3-dimensional data array that can be horizontally "sliced" at different depths.)

GPR depth section (profile) showing a single line of data from the survey of the historic crypt shown above. The domed roof of the crypt can be seen between 1 and 2.5 meters below surface.

The concept of radar is familiar to most people. With ground penetrating radar, the radar signal – an electromagnetic pulse – is directed into the ground (it is important to not get GPR surveys confused with electromagnetic surveys, a recent survey of an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire recently revealed the discrepancies between Magnetometry, EM and GPR surveys over the same area). Subsurface objects and stratigraphy (layering) will cause reflections that are picked up by a receiver. The travel time of the reflected signal indicates the depth. Data may be plotted as profiles, as planview maps isolating specific depths, or as three-dimensional models.

GPR can be a powerful tool in favorable conditions (uniform sandy soils are ideal). Like other geophysical methods used in archaeology (and unlike excavation) it can locate artifacts and map features without any risk of damaging them. Among methods used in archaeological geophysics, it is unique both in its ability to detect some small objects at relatively great depths, and in its ability to distinguish the depth of anomaly sources.

The principal disadvantage of GPR is that it is severely limited by less-than- ideal environmental conditions. Fine-grained sediments (clays and silts) are often problematic because their high electrical conductivity causes loss of signal strength; rocky or heterogeneous sediments scatter the GPR signal, weakening the useful signal while increasing extraneous noise."

PDS: Also, Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) -- is Star Trek's planetary scanners -- just version 0.0000001... <g></comment>


I cannot continue working on my add-ons - <AUTHOR> http://fasezero.com/ <comment><USER2> There seem to be a lot of people that are saying "oh, without XUL based extensions, Firefox is just a (worse) Chrome clone, so I might as well just use Chrome."

I think what they might be missing is that Mozilla's conclusion is a lot like the people seem to be thinking here -- even though Chrome doesn't have the fancy extensions that are possible in Firefox, many many more people are using Chrome than Firefox, because they see it as a better Firefox.

Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where Firefox has a perceived lag.

Mozilla is actively working to improve performance, and you may not want to switch to Chrome after all, because Chrome may instead be the poor man's Firefox (I personally think this is already the case, simply because with my 679 open tabs, Chrome would simply kill itself [44 loaded]).

This video is one of the most exciting I have seen with regards to web browser performance, and it's Mozilla:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q)

More info on what this means for Firefox:

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum)

TL;DR: What if even with the missing XUL extensions, you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster?

<comment><USER3> >>Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where Firefox has a perceived lag.

This is completely false

It has something to do with MARKETING and the fact the Google is largest marketing company in the world and has the ability to market chrome far far far more effectively than Firefox

IE is crap, so Windows users seek a replacement for IE, use to their only option was Firefox. Once Chrome came on the market with a HUGE marketing push people started to migrate

It was 80-90% marketing, not technical

Even if Firefox is better preforming people are not going to switch as only Technical people give a shit about performance numbers.

Edge on windows 10 is starting to eat into Chrome partly because MS is bringing back the IE6 marketing and integration tactics that got them in Anti- trust hot water in the 90's

No Firefox, absent Google Discontinuing the chrome Browser, will never break 20% market share again, I do not care how must better it preforms.

Mozilla needs to focus on Power Users, and Privacy. They are failing at both with these moves IMO

>>you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster?

They they take away my TreeStyle Tabs and a few other Extensions I dont care how much faster it is, FF will be removed my all my systems

TreeStyle Tabs is the the Main reason I use FF today. I dont understand why browsers have tabs horizontally across the window, it looks stupid and is unusable once you get above 20 or 30 tabs open So you talk about have 100's of tabs open, it is pointless if I do not have TreeStyle or some kind of Vertical Tabs. And no the Stupid Dock style of doing it on Chrome and other WebExtensions based hack is neither desirable or usable

<comment><USER2> > They they take away my TreeStyle Tabs and a few other Extensions I dont care > how much faster it is, FF will be removed my all my systems

This is what I don't understand. What would you use instead? Do you see another vendor attempting to recreate XUL-like extensions? Built in functionality like the stuff in Vivaldi doesn't count, since those aren't extensions.

<comment><USER3> >>This is what I don't understand. What would you use instead?

Does not matter, Likely Vivaldi, or Chrome.

I will not reward FF or Mozilla, it may seem petty but I will not continue to use FF after mozilla ignored its users in this manner.

From day one Devs, users and the wider community has been telling mozilla we do not want these changes.

Clearly they do not want me as a user of their product so I will oblige them and stop using their product

I expect to be ignored by a large for-profit corporation like Google, if Mozilla is going to act like google I might as well just move to Chrome.

<comment><USER2> > Clearly they do not want me as a user of their product so I will oblige them > and stop using their product

Got it, spite.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP0MXJAQhmo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP0MXJAQhmo)

Chrome never tried to cater to users like you, so you'll reward that browser because they never bothered to try.

<comment><USER4> > _Got it, spite._

Even if that's true, isn't it a pretty poor reflection on a product if its users dislike its direction so much that they are willing to abandon it in spite?

<comment><USER2> I don't think so. The product is the binary, which can perform better or worse, or have more or fewer features than the competition.

The _direction_ of the product isn't the product itself, and reflects more upon the people who direct the "direction" of the product. This feels more like damage to the brand -- but as usual, I don't know whether the opinion on HN actually translates to the overall population of web users.

I mean, the new Macbook Pro is certainly a failure [doesn't go to 32gb ram], and hell wasn't that iPod a total failure [no wireless, less space than a nomad]? (I know, I know, that was Slashdot.)

<comment><USER4> I agree, perhaps that's more about the brand than the product per se. But in a market where you have to convince your users to replace the pre-installed browser that more or less works pretty well already with your alternative implementation, it seems like brand perception is a pretty important thing. And while a community like HN might not be accurately representative of users at large, it does tend to have a disproportionately high percentage of "trend- makers" who influence other people's decisions on technical subjects.

<comment><USER2> > But in a market where you have to convince your users to replace the pre- > installed browser that more or less works pretty well already with your > alternative implementation, it seems like brand perception is a pretty > important thing.

Yes, but now we're talking about people who (likely) moved to Chrome because it just felt so darned snappy, not because it had great extensions (it didn't) -- or just had Chrome preinstalled.

If Firefox is faster, people who are after speed might just move over from Chrome. If the Firefox brand represents "faster than Chrome" rather than "it doesn't do tree style tabs anymore", they might still be okay. If they had Chrome preinstalled and had never used Firefox, they wouldn't miss the extensions, and probably wouldn't care that tree style tabs doesn't exist.

> And while a community like HN might not be accurately representative of > users at large, it does tend to have a disproportionately high percentage of > "trend-makers" who influence other people's decisions on technical subjects.

Meh. I think people just use what they want to use. How else do we explain why the Rio Karma didn't destroy the iPod? I mean, it's pretty obvious to me that technical, music loving "trend-makers" _required_ gapless playback. How else do you listen to live albums/mixtapes/DJ mixes? The iPod is "just" an intuitive UI/UX and good branding! It makes you use Musicmatch/iTunes!

(Yes, I had a Rio Karma and I later switched my iPod over to Rockbox -- guess how much luck I had "recommending" people to switch to their iPods to Rockbox?)

<comment><USER3> >>Yes, but now we're talking about people who (likely) moved to Chrome because it just felt so darned snappy,

I think you confuse why people move to chrome over IE on windows. The normal every day user uses chrome for 1 of 3 reasons

1\. They hit upon a chrome ad today or years ago when Google was heavily advertising chrome even when you searched now that is their browser and they stick with it

2\. A person that works on, setups, or services their computer installed it

3\. They are heavily in the Google Eco System and want all of the features and conveniences that come with using Chrome with google account (bookmark sync, alerts, hangouts, etc)

None of which has anything to do with Chrome's or firefox's speed, or security.

None of which Firefox can overcome or change by removing functionality.

People that use FF today generally fall into 2 groups. People concerned with Privacy, and people that want functionality that the other browsers do not offer

FF is rejecting 50% of their user base with move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Firefox has three APIs: XUL, Jetpack, and WebExtensions. XUL has been on the way out for years, and never worked in mobile Firefox anyway. (Almost nobody runs mobile Firefox, so that turned out not to matter much.)

Jetpack was introduced in 2013, and by 2014, it was actually usable. It's not clear when and whether Jetpack add-ons will stop working. Mozilla's developer documentation is so confused that you can't tell. WebExtensions and Jetpack are essentially the same functionality with different names.[1]

The trouble with Firefox chasing Google Chrome compatibility is that, once they get there, Google will probably change something so some Google service is essential to an add-on. Like Google did with Android. Then compatible add- ons stop working on Firefox. Nobody runs add-ons on Chrome much, anyway; I have the same add-on on both platforms and its 50:1 Firefox over Chrome. But usage is declining, along with Firefox.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add- ons/WebExtensions/Co...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add- ons/WebExtensions/Comparison_with_the_Add-on_SDK)

<comment><USER6> > Almost nobody runs mobile Firefox, so that turned out not to matter much.

FWIW, I love mobile Firefox and I really don't understand why folks use Chrome instead.

<comment><USER7> As a die-hard FF mobile user....

FF is slow, pages rarely load the first time and I constantly have to manually reload, the interface for making config changes are requires _sooooo_ many clicks. I have no real experience if chrome is better because I never use it, but FF mobile has some real warts

<comment><USER8> most sites that are slow are also slow on chrome. so doesnt even bother.

the only solution is installing noScript. the only version available is in beta. but it works fine.

you will be suprised how few sites I have to whitelist to see the content I want. and usually besides faster, they get much more usable without Javascript!

<comment><USER7> I _do_ use noscript. By default on every site. This slowness is different than your typical js-bloat slowness

<comment><USER9> I use Firefox for Android on a Moto E 2013. It's faster than Chrome. Ditto for my other phone, a Galaxy S3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Once this happens I will leave Firefox after being one of its strongest supporters for years. What makes Firefox worth it is the level to which I can customize it and this will knock out 5 of my must-have add-ons in one shot. When you do that you have nothing but a Chrome clone left and why use a Chrome clone when you can use Chrome. I hate Chrome because I feel locked in on UI design (old-school user here). Once FF takes away my options guaranteed I'll abandon it.

<comment><USER11> If the only reason you hate Chrome is being locked into the UI, you should switch to Vivaldi. Sure, it's a Chrome clone, but the UI is super configurable (and as far as I'm aware, it doesn't do any opt-out user tracking).

<comment><USER12> Is Vivaldi free software (as in speech, not as in beer)? Last time I gave it a serious go, it didn't seem to be (and it was buggy anyway, but that was when it was first made publicly available, so I'm sure that's improved, right?).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If Tree Style Tab doesn't work anymore. What are the reasons to use Firefox? Also what are the alternatives. I tried Chrome but the Tree Style Tab-like plugin is clumsy.

Should I just not update firefox and wait until devs realize tabs were meant to be on the side? Honnestly as a power user I can't browse the web without tree style tab anymore.

<comment><USER14> Mozilla created Tab Center, which is similar to Tree Style Tabs: [https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab- center](https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center).

<comment><USER15> rubbish, will also be incompatible after this change. [https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/issues/868](https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/issues/868)

Furthermore, "showing tabs on the side" is not "similar to Tree Style Tabs"

<comment><USER12> To be fair, "showing tabs on the side" is still leaps and bounds better than "yet another browser that squeezes them into the top, end to end, like a god damn maniac". :)

But yes, the "tree" part of Tree Style Tabs is essential, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is going to kill pentadactyl, which is currently the only reason I'm using Firefox.

For those who aren't familiar, pentadactyl is a Firefox extension that transforms the user interface to make it more minimal and vim-like. You get to use standard vim bindings to navigate the web and it even gives you a vim-like command line interface to the browser's functionality.

<comment><USER17> And it's going to kill TabGroups too. And a lot of other addons from other authors will probably suffer the same fate.

<comment><USER18> The author of the posted article is the author is TabGroups.

<comment><USER17> I know, which is why this is doubly sad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If this WebExtensions move makes Tab Mix Plus stop working (I use multi-row tabs extensively) then I will no longer have any reason to continue to use Firefox. I put up with it's poor performance and instability merely for this one feature.

Nobody needs a clone of Chrome; we already have Chrome.

<comment><USER20> I also wish chrome would stop prepending [http://](http://) everytime i copy an ip from the url bar.

<comment><USER21> Is it prepending it on copy, or hiding it for display in the url bar?

<comment><USER22> It's both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just curious will the new Web Extensions style allow add-ons like Classic Theme Restorer [1] and Tree-style Tab [2] that change the Firefox UI?

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

[2] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style- ta...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/)

<comment><USER24> The Classic Theme Restorer page says "CTR will stop working on Firefox 57 (release) when Mozilla drops support for XUL / XPCOM / legacy add-ons, but it will still work on Firefox 52 ESR until Firefox 59 ESR replaces it in 2018 (~Q2)."

<comment><USER25> It sounds like Tree-style Tabs will stop working then as well. That will be a sad day. Tree-style Tabs and some form of mouse gestures are pretty much all I need.

<comment><USER26> I won't need either of those, but this is a major part of why I like Firefox, each person can make it their own.

These in particular make Firefox _my_ own (your Firefox is not my firefox, but your firefox is OK), and I will be sad if they disappear without replacement:

Disable Style Button [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable- style...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-style- button/)

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

Flash Control [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flash- control...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flash-control/)

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

It's All Text [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/its-all- text/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/its-all-text/)

LastPass [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lastpass- pass...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lastpass-password- manager/)

One Tab [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/onetab/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/onetab/)

Pinboard [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pinboard- exte...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pinboard-extension/)

Privacy Badger [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy- badge...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-badger17/)

Suspend Tab [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/suspend- tab/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/suspend-tab/)

uBlock Origin [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock- origin...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/)

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

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

I have a few others which aren't much important to me, but these make FF my own.

<comment><USER27> The only plugin I really care about is ublock origin. If that stays, I'll keep ff otherwise I'll go back to chrome. I suppose there's no way of knowing whether a given plug in is possible in future without having access to the source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm only sticking to Firefox because there's a specific set of extensions I want to keep using. If only one of my key extensions breaks, my last reason to use Firefox vanishes, and I will immediately switch to Chromium/Iridium and never come back.

<comment><USER29> Same here, if tree style tabs stop working then I'm off to Vivaldi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's sad, but I am seriously worried that this could be the end for firefox. Add to that the recent refocus/re-prioritization on firefox within mozilla, it could be a first death knell for the organization entirely.

I know in my own case, and it seems from comments here and other anecdotal experience, that a significant chunk of remaining firefox users depend on at least one extension that has no migration path, as there simply aren't equivalent APIs implemented or even planned. I really don't understand how they think they are going to maintain a userbase when they remove the last remaining feature that differentiates firefox from the other common browsers. Mozilla starts out in a tough competitive position, as they don't have an OS or platform to bundle a browser with. Alienating the users with the most reason to seek out an alternative seems to just be digging themselves deeper into the hole.

</comment><comment><USER30> The developer of the ePubReader add-on for Firefox is looking to raise $26,685 in funds in order to rewrite the add-on for WebExtensions.

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

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/569473473/epubreader- fo...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/569473473/epubreader-for-future- firefox)

</comment><comment><USER31> I've been praying that Mozilla would rethink this, but that looks increasingly unlikely. I guess switching to a LTS release will tide me over for a time, but this really does feel like the end of an era.

<comment><AUTHOR> This was my thinking as well. I'll probably move to the last ESR ('extended support release') before the cutoff period, just so I can keep using Tab Groups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This makes me curious - does Mozilla's new Tab Center experiment use Web Extensions? Or are they refusing to take their own medicine, and using inaccessible internal APIs? [https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab- center](https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center) (Edit: Deprecated, not inaccessible.)

<comment><USER33> From a quick look at the source[0] it uses the deprecated Add-On SDK[1].

[0] [https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/blob/master/main.js](https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/blob/master/main.js)

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add- ons/SDK](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK)

<comment><USER34> There is a rough version [0] based on the sidebarAction API [1], this is probably going to improved when it actually lands in Firefox Nightly, which should hopefully be soon.

[0] [https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/tree/webext](https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/tree/webext) [1] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I am not familiar with Web Extensions, but I am familiar with the fairly common event in which application vendors severely change functionality, with significant downstream effects. Such behavior seems more common amongst open- source products. Consider Python 3. Asterisk's scripting language. Perl 6.

Incompatible version changes drive away users and developers. The uncertainty that comes along with a planned update in which compatibility is not guaranteed makes us all shy away from developing in that application at all, not just on the old version.

Microsoft always seemed to do a good job at maintaining compatibility over its versions. Most applications that used to run on Windows still do, although there are a lot of exceptions. Python's change to the print statement broke everything, though the fix was easy; most of the time the fix is not easy - and even when it is, nothing works until someone gets around to the fix.

I appreciate the need to move forward, and sometimes you have to break stuff to make it better, but these incompatible changes just destroy momentum. It's a shame to see it happen.

<comment><USER3> >>I am not familiar with Web Extensions,

Chrome....

Mozilla is turning Firefox into just another Chrome Browser...

Firefox 57 will like see me stop using FireFox it will be no different than chrome so I might as well just use chrome

>>and sometimes you have to break stuff to make it better

It is yet to be seen if it will be better, so far everything they are doing in firefox to make it more like chrome I am 1000000% opposed to.

<comment><USER26> > Firefox 57 will like see me stop using FireFox it will be no different than > chrome so I might as well just use chrome

Firefox probably won't phone google.

<comment><USER3> Yea that is not a concern for me... I am logged in to Google services all the time anyway and I have a Android Phone sitting 3 ins from my computer.

I use Firefox for a few Productivity Extensions that will likely stop working in 57, as such there is no reason for me to continue to use FireFox.

<comment><USER36> Just today I was unable to access a modem configuration site (at [http://192.168.1.1](http://192.168.1.1)) with Chrome, because without internet it couldn't phone Google to decide wether to use it as an address or a search term.

<comment><USER37> I have never had this problem with chrome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Classic Theme Restorer, Tree Style Tabs and Tab Mix Plus are the three extensions that add up to differentiate Firefox from Chrome for me.

Unmodified Firefox is just an inferior clone of Chrome. Firefox is pointless without its UI-altering extensions.

Quite amazing.

</comment><comment><USER39> Oh no! I've become dependent on Tab Groups over the past year or so; even kicked in a donation. Thanks Luís for all your hard work.

</comment><comment><USER40> Am I the only person here who was considering switching away from Firefox a few years back because I didn't think they had a plan to really move their efforts further?

Honestly, I'm really impressed with their plans for Servo, WebExtensions and other recently active projects.

I plan on sticking it out for the long haul.

EDIT: qualified when I wanted to switch.

</comment><comment><USER41> Aw snap, Beyond Australis and its slim chrome is one of the best way (along with tree style tabs) to regain some vertical space with sub optimal resolution (namely, the 1368x768 of my x220t).

</comment><comment><USER42> mozilla is pulling a nokia here.

greasemonkey and add-ons are why people continue to use FF beyond the brief evaluation phase.

now mozilla are clearly in the thrall of Abstraction Astronauts and know- nothing UX Design 'gurus'.

just like Nokia before the iphone

</comment><comment><USER43> I don't expect much from the leadership who brought us FirefoxOS, and indeed the WebExtension migration is being mismanaged - _BUT_ : the hard truth is that the Chrome extension ecosystem is already on top and growing, while the Firefox one has been waning for a while.

If you build a browser extension today, you build it for Chrome; if you have a Mac, you also get a Safari version almost for free; and then _eventually_ , _if you have time_ , _if you can be bothered_ , you port it to FF. This could not go on, something had to be done. And they did it: JetPack/Webextensions, despite the uber-confused documentation, is an almost-complete compatibility layer that makes porting extensions from Chrome much easier. If they'd left it at that, nobody would have complained.

Unfortunately, the next step is to gut the old infrastructure. They might have their technical reasons for that, but it seems a suicidal move from a commercial perspective. They are throwing overboard almost 20 years of competitive differentiation and community engagement. It's like Microsoft told people to rewrite their .Net apps in ObjC.

</comment><comment><USER44> I completely rely on Firegestures, the premiere mouse gesture addon.

Mouse gestures are in my muscle memory. I can't live without them, and every single Webextensions Chrome mouse gestures addon either:

a) Sucks. Doesn't work at all on internal pages including new pages (which is not a blocker, but sucks), and more importantly doesn't work _well_ ANYWHERE. Inconsistent behavior, poor performance. Just unacceptable.

b) Is actually literally malware. Once Chrome extensions get popular, a shady Chinese or Russian consortium buys them up, adds user tracking, and silently updates the extension so your every move is followed.

Chrome has been around for almost 10 years now, so I'm absolutely convinced that Webextensions are unable to support _GOOD_ mouse gestures.

Now that Firefox will shortly become hot stinking Chinatown garbage, my only hope will be Vivaldi, a browser using Blink (Chrome's backend). Its mouse gestures are really close to being usable-- it only lacks configurable mouse button chording.

[https://vivaldi.com/](https://vivaldi.com/)

<comment><USER45> I'm with you. I was hooked on mouse gestures after using Opera 12. They came built into the browser, and you could tell. Gestures worked everywhere-- on a new tab, on a loading page, even on the browser window outside a tab.

Now I'm using Firefox plus a dozen extensions to poorly replicate a base Opera 12 installation. The e10s update already broke some FireGesture in some minor ways (e.g. wheel gestures scroll the page content now). Other extensions stopped working completely.

Time to give Vivaldi another shot...

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Personally, I use Firefox because Mozilla is a non-profit organization with a mandate to support a free and open Internet, which includes protecting the privacy of Internet users. That sounds like very fine words, but they do the technical work to make these things happen, such as their collaboration with the Tor project: [https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-heart- firefox](https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-heart-firefox)

I use Chrome as well, but ultimately Chrome belongs to Google, just as Edge and Safari belong to rival corporations. Using a corporate Web browser is a reasonable choice, but it's not something that I would do for UI reasons.

</comment><comment><USER47> I think there is a niche for a programmer's browser. I often think something half-way between a web browser and the old Lisp and Smalltalk machines.

<comment><USER48> Oh, it's called Emacs (being half-serious here)

<comment><USER49> Emacs can already embed a webkit widget, but much more work would be needed to make interaction with the widget "emacsy". At the moment all you can do with it is send JavaScript snippets to it to make it change internal state. It would be great to intertwine this more with Emacs so that e.g. completing-read could be used on the DOM.

<comment><USER47> It would be rather fun to download a webpage in "BrowserEmacs" and have a REPL available with the page turned into a S Expression for you to manipulate at your or your plug-ins leisure. Throw in the tools to make plug-ins have there own UI and you have a developer's browser.

<comment><USER32> Ubiquity [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_(Firefox)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_\(Firefox\)) (now defunct) had natural-language commands with localization including subject/verb/object order. It supported subscribing to commands too, so you could keep up with changing APIs automatically. It even understood pronouns, so you could write "email this to Dave" and it would email your selected text to your gmail contact named Dave. The only thing it was missing was a permissions model to limit what untrusted command code could do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Tree Style Tabs is a true differentiator for Firefox and it is a perfect expression of Mozzilla Mission: [https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/mission/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/) "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts _people first_ , where individuals can __shape __their own __experience __and are __empowered __, safe and independent. "

Seeing Tree Style Tabs continuity halted and more importantly a developper motivation deeply affected is not a good sign for the community and users who engaged with Mozzilla's goals and with its addon community.

Tree Style Tabs empowers the user browsing activity at a level rarely seen. It brings to awareness constant history (tab tree) and allows the user to mature its browsing profile with structure.

An deeply thought addon that really shapes the browser into a navigation tool that empowers its users and allows building more mature browsing focus and improves the individual's independence.

Mozilla should review carefully the resulting loss of differentiating value by letting a valued and committed add-on developper go and how this diffuse into impacting its mission.

</comment><comment><USER51> Firefox has literally been kicked by its userbase and Chrome to get into its current semi competitive state. One understands the need to evolve but change just for the sake of change and activity can just be spinning your wheels. We don't need another Chrome clone. Firefox and Chrome's objectives are completely different.

We definitely need more browser competition but growing complexity rules out one person or small team efforts like before all over the open source ecosystem.

Untill open source users can get their act together and find a way to fund development they will find projects increasingly less accountable to them than their corporate sponsors.

</comment><comment><USER52> Sad, but hardly unexpected. The truth is, the mozilla leadership has never had much vision. In the early days of Seamonkey (and then Firefox) there was a slavish devotion to chasing Internet Explorer, and far too much rationalization of feature selection based on "IE has it" or "but IE doesn't support that." Later, with the ascension of Chrome, Firefox began to try and mimic Chrome the same way.

Other than MathML support, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything truly unique about Firefox, as compared to Chrome these days.

<comment><USER4> > _The truth is, the mozilla leadership has never had much vision_

I'm not sure I agree there. I feel like they've had at least a few pretty strong points of vision. The failure has been more on the execution of producing and maintaining useful software in support of that vision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> FWIW, I created a petition here to see if we can get Mozilla to reconsider this decision: [https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s- best...](https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best- feature).

May be a Hail May, but worth a shot if we as Firefox users really care.

</comment><comment><USER54> For now I prefer Vivaldi. As for tabs I don't require anything more fancy than vertical tabs, pinned tabs, and tab stacks. And Vivaldi's is the only UI I can customize to my liking, and I really like it's quick-command dialog.

[https://s27.postimg.org/rmbo9jgwx/vivaldi.png](https://s27.postimg.org/rmbo9jgwx/vivaldi.png)

</comment><comment><USER55> Ok, so, the only way I seem to be able to vote against this is by not using firefox anymore. Then that's what'll happen.

</comment><comment><USER56> Guess I'll have to use an outdated version of Firefox forever. Tab Groups is absolutely indispensable add-on, and Mozilla was idiotic to remove this feature in the first place. And now they're making it impossible for add-on authors to keep working on their add-ons.

</comment><comment><USER57> I use Tab Groups constantly, I switched from Chrome to firefox almost entirely for Tab Groups. Runs terribly on my machine, I'll be back on Chrome the second Tab Groups are gone, unfortunately.

I've been worried since web extension only announcement we were heading for something like this.

</comment><comment><USER58> Can someone explain me in a simple way the "xul prevent us to switch to multi process" argument ( when i'll naively think - just use one more dedicated process for xul. ?). Xul design & gecko

<comment><USER59> There isn't one. The actual argument is "multiprocess can break some /classic/ extensions". Then they lumped in "existing extensions can cause bad performance". And now they are using that bandwagon to remove tons of power from extensions.

I wish we had both, because I would prefer webextensions (proper permissions) but when I needed to I can still use a powerful /classic/ extension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Would those add-ons still work with SeaMonkey? That might be a way to keep them

</comment><comment><USER61> When vimperiator, Zotero and tree style tabs stop working I will need to find another browser.

What a clusterfuck Mozilla is becoming.

</comment><comment><USER62> Isn't Firefox open source? Can't you just fork the project and start your own browser, where all these changes don't get made?

Is the real concern about forking the userbase and ecosystem, and the fork won't have the critical user base to become self-sustaining?

Edit: added paragraph for clarity.

<comment><USER63> Maintaining a fork of a large browser is extremely difficult, especially for coordinating and merging vulnerability fixes.

<comment><USER62> Do no other extension developers have this issue?

<comment><USER64> The EPUBreader extension now notifies you on each relaunch that they need donations to fund a complete rewrite to work in future Firefox versions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> This is how Firefox dies.

</comment><comment><USER66> Do you want a fork? Do you want to drive more people to Pale Moon? Do you want to become even less relevant relative to Chrome? Do you want to make the web even less user-centric?

A change like this is how you do that. Good job, Mozilla.

</comment><comment><USER67> Heh. Funny that I just updated to Firefox Developer Edition 53 and now Tree Style Tab (one of the addons that will go when XUL stuff does) has severe theming issues and weird flickers.

It'd be nice if a mod could change the title to "I cannot continue working on my Firefox add-ons"

</comment><comment><USER68> It's time for me to try and deploy everywhere some small WebKit-based browser, like dwb or its clones. Not very sad, but waste of time.

<comment><USER69> Came to say this. Vimperator cannot operate within constrained add-on sandboxes. Chromium already demonstrates how it works -- you get your vi keys on the page but as soon as you open a new tab and start entering your URL, nothing familiar works as Chromium takes ownership for the new tab.

I dabbled with DWB a few years back. It shows a lot of promise but it wasn't worth the hassle back then. If firefox is sure to go down, then all bets are off.

(Btw, dwb is deemed dying too, on the account of using webkit. uzbl is more maintained but uses webkit as well.)</comment></comment>


Crowdfunding Weekend coming to Durham, NC - <AUTHOR> http://www.crowdfundingweekend.org/register.html <comment><USER2> This isn't rocket science people. I raised >10k (in Durham no less) and didn't spend an extra $100 on a crowdfunding weekend.</comment>


Twitter CEO's Unexpected Advice on Preserving Startup Culture in Your Company - <AUTHOR> http://blog.idonethis.com/post/62808799986/unexpected-advice-on-preserving-startup-culture <comment><USER2> The second half of the article is arguably more interesting than the first: it covers Zappos' CEO's idea for increasing productivity with large numbers of employees.

I'll be very interested to see if his "city" experiment works.

<comment><USER3> I've worked at firms in suburban office parks, and I've worked at firms in downtown urban areas. I like the latter more, simply because you can walk to lunch and interact with people (sometimes they're the homeless, which is how I learned about Blue Leapers being a global threat to mankind...)

With the suburban offices, either I'm bringing my lunch, or I'm driving somewhere to go eat. In both cases I'm in a sensory bubble, and that's bad. So I think Tony's idea has a lot of validity.

<comment><USER4> Even more than that, every person I know who in their 20s and 30s would prefer to work in the city and either do a quick commute in via public transportation or live in the city. No one wants to have to get in a car and drive for 40 minutes. If they do, they justify it due to cost, not actual benefit.

The companies that get the best people are the one's located in downtown. That alone increases productivity.

<comment><USER5> You are generalizing your little bubble to the world at large. Lots of people don't want to live or work in a large city.

<comment><USER4> The vast majority want to live in cities. It is proven quantitatively through rents rising much faster in all the dense areas of the US while suburban rents and prices have lagged.

Sure "Lots of people don't want to live or work in a large city." is technically correct, but pretty much every other person wants to be able to walk to work, walk to resturants and never have to touch a car except for trips outside where they live. That lifestyle doesn't exist when you work in office parks.

The only argument for living in the burbs is price. People say "I want a yard"... if you had the money you would have it in the city.

Sure, some people make tradeoffs and would rather have the yard, but most people I know move to the burbs because of price and justify it with the yard. Most of the top talent lives in cities.

Are there exceptions? Of course.

<comment><USER5> Was that intended to be a serious response? "I know what people really want even if they say they want something else"? People being forced into cities quantitatively proves they want to be in cities?

<comment><USER4> I'll humor you, what is the benefit of living in suburbia?

<comment><USER6> More space, less crime, parking, cheaper rent or mortgage, cleaner air, quieter, more green spaces, and typically only a 20-30 minute drive from the city if you actually want to go to something big-metro-specific, like the opera/museum/theater/etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is obvious, but sometimes tough on employees. At a prior employer I watched how early employees felt that things had become too impersonal when they had to start recording their time and submitting expense reports. But the reality is the company was suffering from under-management as the founders couldn't keep a grip on the firm with their informal management style. They were smart enough to change some of the culture to enable the company to keep growing.

From an employee's point of view, it's tough, but if you're happiest at a 20-50 person firm, it's best to move on (at least after vesting) when the company gets too big.

<comment><USER8> I'd say that the moment you start doing time keeping is the moment the startup culture days are over. It's like a mental switch for everybody in the company. Everybody feels it and there's simply no going back.

It's like puberty, painful, but inevitable, and leads to more maturity later.

<comment><USER9> I'm curious about what's so wrong about time keeping.

I've seen startups that did some time keeping (though not in a very tight way, more in just keeping track of who did what on a half-day basis), some that didn't keep any, and I can't see much of a difference in the culture or how it's a bad thing. I don't see how it's useful, but it's never been a red flag to me by itself.

Is it because of the formal process that comes with it, because of the way it's usually done at bigco, or do some people feel annoyed about having to always count their time ?

<comment><USER10> > Is it because of the formal process that comes with it, because of the way > it's usually done at bigco, or do some people feel annoyed about having to > always count their time ?

Some people must account for all of their time in 15 minute blocks. It's frustrating because either you do it properly, and have people complaining about the amount of time you spend doing the paperwork; or you fudge it, in which case whyTF do they specify it to 15 minutes why don't they just let you give a broad outline of what you've done?

BigCo can be _really_ weird.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I feel like there are four stages of company development that need distinct sets of people.

1\. Pioneers who can survive and search for a successful direction.

2\. Generalists who can take that direction and establish a foundation.

3\. Specialists who can take that foundation and build something that can succeed on a large scale. (I don't like the Specialist label, but I couldn't think of a better one.)

4\. Optimizers who can grow and refine a large-scale business.

Many companies (Microsoft, for example) make the mistake of promoting themselves as a stage 1 or 2 company when they function like a stage 3 or 4 company. They keep looking for Pioneers who are going to be unhappy and quit after a year when what they really need are Optimizers.

It's not that later-stage companies can't benefit from having and keeping Generalists, it's just that the company is too large to be doing the things that Generalists enjoy. They don't need somebody who can build a server one day and code a new contact page the next. They need somebody who will spend six months working on a project that makes a certain kind of transaction 10% faster.

<comment><USER7> I'd add a 5th. "Maxing the value of a mature or declining business." Many companies overinvest on #4, when the business has moved to step 5. IBM played this very well. Blackberry, perhaps not so well.

<comment><USER4> I'd argue that what IBM did well was build a consultancy business. That is where a lot of their growth came from over the past 5 years. Their core business is being used as a cash cow and brand for their new business.

<comment><USER7> True. I view the move to services as a way of monetizing the brand. Historically their HW and SW weren't always the best, but people knew you could call their support with a problem. Now they've found a way to get paid for the support as demand for their big iron shrank. They've done a lot of acquisitions too, but not wasteful ones. They still do share buybacks every year, which suggests they know their place as a shrinking company, so they invest profits in shrinking the amount of outstanding shares. You know something is up when Warren Buffett is investing in them. :-)

Compare this to other mature tech companies who blow away all the shareholder wealth once the growth stops.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I've found that companies are usually bad at knowing when to buy back shares. I'd usually prefer them to just pay a dividend, but you are definitely correct that they [IBM] are much better with being shareholder friendly than a lot of tech companies.

I really like the framework proposed by the OP and added by you.

[Added] IBM

<comment><USER7> Dividend paying stocks outperform non-dividend payers over time, so you're on the right track. Giving the owners their money back keeps mature firms from wasting it. (This is very different from high growth firms who have a high cost of capital)

The upside on buying shares back is that it doesn't force people to reinvest in the company - it just shrinks the ownership base as the company shrinks.

The OP deserves the credit. He did the harder thinking.

<comment><USER4> When I said dividend, I should have specified 'special dividend' one that is paid out once in a large cash payment.

"The upside on buying shares back is that it doesn't force people to reinvest in the company - it just shrinks the ownership base as the company shrinks."

That upside is really not important for professional investors when dealing with mid cap or larger companies. Assuming best case that management teams are genuinely looking out for shareholders rather than inflating the stock price for their options, management teams are not very good at predicting when their own stock is under/over valued.

Most investors want them to return cash to shareholders in most cases as liquidity for companies like IBM is so big that it doesn't matter if they must buy back shares.

Since it is professional investor's jobs to value the share price, they are in a much better position to decide whether the share should be bought or not.

Also, dividend stocks have supposedly performed better over history, but dividends is not a recognized alpha factor by the main finance research relied upon by market participants(1). Dividends go in and out of favor depending on a number of factors, right now, its probably the market's expectation of raising rates set against the background of increasing demand for income.

Professional investors like dividends because they can simply put that money to work somewhere else.

(1) There are papers that say dividends are a factor, but I'm not aware of one that is widely implemented.

Anything beyond fama-french's 3 factor model doesn't have widespread acceptance yet. There are a number of other models in use, especially by quant funds, but they are not public and tested in public.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The whole idea of bringing people together for more interaction can easily be abused. As a dev at a startup, we just sit at a big table (well, technically 6 desks pushed together). While we have had some great discussions that improved our workflow and even the direction of the company, we also had many, many discussions about football, Verge articles, and Youtube videos. Being motivated, (generally) hard-working developers, we actually got a bit frustrated with how easy it was to interact with each other.

A few months ago, we let go of most of our scheduling structure, and now we have virtually no obligation to be in the office if we don't want to. Now we just work from home if we absolutely need a highly productive day. I like the structure we've come up with (plus we distract each other a lot less these days), and we are much more productive. There's a balance to be struck, and encouraging interaction can have unintended side effects if you aren't careful.

<comment><USER13> We had a similar problem here. I was frustrated when people felt like they _had_ to stay home to get work done. We set aside one of the meeting rooms as a quiet work room (with monitors/keyboards/mice). Gives another option for getting away from the noise to focus but you are still close enough for collaboration when you want/need it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Being a CEO requires you to sell two products: What your company offers, and what you offer those that produce those offerings.

Achieving greatness can only come with an obsessive self-awareness to always be trying to improve both.

</comment><comment><USER15> I was employee 40 at a startup that went to 400. I think Dick's advice is right. The hardest part is losing many of the early employees once you hit about 150. But the bigger problem would be trying to keep them. You need different skill sets and different people for different stages. It hurts though. (also agree that the Zappos piece was much more interesting to me - but Vegas?! It's tough to go outside 3 months of the year after 9am)

</comment><comment><USER16> The company I work for has been going through the metamorphosis of startup to medium sized over the last few years.

I firmly believe that there needs to be more structure (policies, procedures, documentation) as you get bigger and add employees. If those are lacking, you'll get a lot of uninformed employees making poor decisions and a product that looks and feels disjointed.

</comment><comment><USER17> A couple people mentioned wanting to read more on Tsieh's Downtown Project.

This colorful piece was posted on HN over the summer: [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5895699](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5895699)

When reading I'd recommend considering that some time has passed, so maybe things have improved on the Zappos/Hsieh side.</comment>