This summary seemed pretty good though.

I think “the Fediverse” is generally understood to refer to ActivityPub-based projects, or even more narrowly, “things that can be seen from Mastodon”. At least I understood it as such, even if that’s not technically correct.

Yes: https://chat.mozilla.org

I think you might be overestimating how much code is contributed by unpaid volunteers…

Presumably this one’s less work, so even with them being worked on at the same time, no real reason to hold back the one that’s done sooner. But apparently you can try out tab groups already: https://lemmy.ml/post/20000489

There’s also the fact that it’s a false dichotomy.

Now there’s a meme I haven’t seen in a while.

This sounds exactly like the type of nontechnical nonsense they’re complaining about: attacking a strawman (“they’re trying to prevent people from refactoring C code and making them rewrite everything in the current fancy language”) even after explicitly calling out that that was not going to happen (“and to reiterate, no one is trying force anyone else to learn Rust nor prevent refactorings of C code”).

Well, they were already quarantined to each website, but if that same website got embedded in half of all websites, that still enables a lot of tracking. So now they’re also quarantined to each website and the website it’s embedded in, if any.

What more do you think should be done to stop fingerprinting, and does that involve sacrificing usability?

(Also, “almost nothing” feels like a gross exaggeration? Just the Tor Uplift project brought in lots of measures, quite a few of which could even be enabled by default.)

Mozilla by itself doesn’t have the influence to change it, but with Mozilla’s help (i.e. this experiment), others do. Specifically, legislators can have more freedom to implement strict privacy-protecting measures if they have proof that an alternative is available that doesn’t cost lots of voters their jobs.

But you can’t provide that proof if you don’t run the experiment.

There’s also the bit where if it doesn’t work out no real harm is done (to users - there’s obviously reputation damage to Mozilla now): people who already block things by default are not affected at all, and no new information is shared about those who don’t. Whereas the upside if it does work out is enormous. In other words, low risk, high gain. Even with low odds, that’s a path worth exploring.

Luckily Gecko still exists. And who knows, maybe Servo will make it one day (but the odds are stacked against both them and Ladybird anyway).

decide on the word “may” vs “will”

I assume they went with way land as a compromise.

All your examples are at a way smaller scale, or rely on corporate cooperation (and we already have that in Chromium). With the exception of VLC, which is a treasure, but also has way fewer adversaries/things that will break because they don’t care about VLC.

OK cool, let’s conservatively say every C-suite member gets 10 million. I don’t know how many of those there are, but let’s conservatively say 10. That only leaves us with a funding gap of 400 million. Any idea how to close that?

You’re saying Firefox could exist, and keep up with security updates and website compatibility, without being backed by money? (Or based on a couple of donations?) Any convincing evidence that could make us trust that that’s possible too?

Paid for by what money?

One extra Norwegian user in Statcounter’s biased and unrepresentative dataset started to use Linux, probably.

I won’t deny that Mozilla should be friendlier to community contributions.

But this is exactly it:

I enjoy testing things and shaping the future of Firefox.

So when you say:

people would’ve said beforehand

This is beforehand! You’re using Nightly so you can help shape this feature; so that that option to toggle it off gets added before this reaches regular users.

(I can also assure you that Firefox is a passion for many of the people who work on it. Some of them are pretty active on Mastodon, too.)