For many years AMD was uncompetitive compared to Intel / Nvidia. Intel had 80% of the market at one point. It probably would have died off if it wasn't for folk that wanted Linux compatibility. Many run FOSS because of privacy. Linux is a key part of that.

Oh gosh. Forgot all about that shit. No thanks.

Do AMD not realise that Linux/Privacy nerds stuck with them regardless for years. Would they have survived without that loyalty?

Selling jpegs as addons is good for gamers?

All they're doing with DLC is milking existing code.

But they are forks and they rely on Firefox development. Using them is fine, but with Mozilla funding and keeping up with browser development, they'd be poor

Its a bit like Brave taking Chromium, changing a few lines and saying "we built a browser".

I'm assuming because they don't have those AI engineers. I don't agree with this or AI, but diversification isn't something that can be ignored.

They need to focus on browser and bet on things that could succeed in the future. Winding down those bets that failed (like 3d visual worlds) is sensible.

Of the 60 they are laying off, how many of those work on Firefox?

They can also use Yahoo or Bing as default for money.

The other option is diversify your revenue. Which is likely where the ad stuff comes in. If they can do that in a privacy respecting way with a facility to opt out, I have no objections. The loss of the biggest open source chromium alternative is massive and unthinkable.

For all the flaws of Mozilla, no one has forked, done better and put it out of business. It's easier to run it behind a keyboard with zero responsibility.

I've felt this for a while.

When dirty tricks are at play, it's best to resist.

Don't get me wrong, they've made some bad decisions, but the world is a darker place without them.

Maybe, but Intel operates there so the labour pool is probably quite skilled already. Perhaps good supply chains too.

That poster has a point. I'm a Brit here, so no skin in the game. You're more focussed on being right that trying to comprehend that people look at things differently.

No one thought Biden was good, but he was the candidate and most know that name recognition is key in US elections. Most presential candidates fail on their first run. Kamala, despite having some OK polling numbers still has to get through to disengaged American voters who do not follow politics and probably know little more than the attack lines heropponents will throw at her this campaign. They have to define her before others do. This option is riskier than you realise, the only thing that changed was Biden became a riskier option than before.

Things are less black and white than you want them to be. Nuance and grey area is key, despite being inconvenient.

It isn't rocket science. You recruit from the market or train your own.

It's painful they do not get this.

Or-der.... Or-derrrrr?

We can debate this all day long but we all know torque is cheap.