• 0 Posts
  • 53 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 18th, 2024

help-circle






  • I understand that you made such an experience, but I can’t share it though. I’ve been a Firefox user for almost as long as Firefox exists, which is almost two decades. (I think I joined somewhere between 2005-2007). I’ve tried other browsers, sometimes I had to. However, I didn’t notice any benefits compared to Firefox. Especially not in performance. Even though benchmarks have always shown clear differences, they weren’t significant enough for me to consider switching, as the difference really didn’t impact my browsing experience.

    Regarding the memes: That was just a random annectode which I found suitable here. I don’t claim it has been that way since the beginning. (Can’t relate to that anyway.) But given that it has been around for a while, I don’t see how performance can be an argument in favour of Chrome in this.




  • How was it more performant? As I remember it, Chrome was loading websites not noticeably faster than Firefox, as website loading speed depended and still depends mainly on your internet connection and hardware anyway.

    As I remember it, Chrome exploded because it was pushed onto users at every possible opportunity while Firefox depended (and still depends) on users actively looking for it.

    Used Google or Google products? Get ads for Chrome. Wanted to download Google Earth? You had to activly uncheck a box such that Chrome wasn’t going to be installed as well. Meanwhile no ads and not the same amount of exposure for Firefox.

    That way they achieved a critical mass and snowballing did the rest. There were so many users using it that it was considered a good choice just because it was used by many people.

    Regarding the performance aspect, if there even was a noticeable difference, it was worse than Firefox. Where else did the “Chrome eating RAM” memes come from?









  • I wonder whether it’s possible to fight wars without – ideally – having casaulties at all.

    For example, sedating instead of killing. Afterwards prison camps or something like that. Admittedly, given the scale, it is financially and logistically a tremendous effort. But how much must a human life “be worth” in order to be spared?

    There are other obvious issues like civil unrest, if the other party keeps killing soldiers of one’s own military.

    Still, it’s better than to end lifes from my perspective. One side must be the bigger one.

    We spend so much effort and resources into specialising how to kill each other. But we don’t use that resources for finding alternative ways.

    If there are people who really want to kill each other, throw them together and leave the rest alone.