Astro has "server islands" which rely on a backend server running somewhere. If 90% of the page is static but you need some interactivity for the remaining 10%, then Astro is a good fit, as that's what makes it different than other purely static site generators. Unlike Next.js, it's also not tied to React but framework-agnostic.
Anyways, that's why it's a good fit for Cloudflare: that backend needs to be run somewhere and Astro is big enough to have some sort of a userbase behind them that Cloudflare can advertise its service to. Think of it more as a targeted ad than a real acquisition because they're super interested in the technology behind it. If that were the case, they could've just forked it instead of acquiring it.
From Astro's perspective, they're (presumably) getting more money than they ever did working on a completely open source tool with zero paywalls, so it's a win-win for both sides that Cloudflare couldn't get from their vibe-coded project nobody's using at the moment.
IMHO no. Every chatbot has so much wasted space, it really doesn't need to be full-width. Also, what's easier?
Option 1: Being on a tab, copying the URL of the tab, switching to the chatbot tab, pasting the URL and writing some instructions about what to do with that tab.
Option 2: Clicking on the "summarise page" button (whether from the sidebar or from right-click context menu), and having the browser pre-fill the prompt with the URL + the reader view version of the content on that page.
Then you right-click on the AI button and click on "remove", but that's a whole different discussion than what you asked in the previous comment.
It's also why I really don't understand the need for a kill switch to begin with (other than pleasing annoying users), you don't need to wait for it. You can already get rid of the chatbot integration, there's a remove button already. It's also kind of annoyingly easy to misclick it, so they're just gonna remove it from those places and put it away in settings and those same annoying users will consider that a win.
Frankly I don't really even want an opt-in. If Mozilla wants to go build an AI browser, they can do that, but it should be a separate project; don't transition Firefox into being an AI browser. I don't want to use an "AI browser with AI features disabled", whether through an opt-in option or an opt-out option.
"You people"? Take a look at my comment history and see my takes on AI please, but this is like the least harmful way of integrating it and yet "you people" are the loudest about it.
Can you do the same on Windows? Is it tucked away in settings on macOS? Can you disable it on Google? Can you disable it anywhere else? Why are you the most vocal about the integration that is literally the easiest to turn off? You need two clicks to do it right now, you're gonna need at least three once this kill switch is in settings.
The AI boosting from the likes of you is the reason Mozilla is sinking Firefox by turning it into an "AI browser". I don't want anything to do with that.
I would've been equally outraged about Windows becoming an "agentic OS" if I had been a Windows user. I don't like what Apple is doing to my phone and laptop, but at least they haven't promised to make the iPhone an "AI phone".
More than one thing can be bad at a time, and right now, this conversation is about Mozilla. We can have a conversation about other bad things some other time.
Again, look at my comment history. I'm not discussing AI-as-a-whole because as you've pointed out it's not the topic of this discussion. I'm discussing how trivial it is to turn off as opposed to literally anywhere else, and that's not even discussing the provider choice you don't get anywhere else.
There's a whole section in macOS/iOS settings titled "Apple Intelligence and Siri" with ChatGPT being the only option, and you're seemingly happy with that compromise. Yet here you are complaining about an integration that's even easier to turn off and allows you to pick between 5 providers. There is literally no way of triggering it that doesn't immediately show you the "turn it off" button as it is right now (as in before this update reaches me).
I also invite you to go to firefox.com right now and find me a single mention of AI, since you for some reason are imagining that it is being advertised as an "AI browser".
> There's a whole section in macOS/iOS settings titled "Apple Intelligence and Siri" with ChatGPT being the only option, and you're seemingly happy with that compromise
If you read my comment again, it might occur to you that no, I'm not happy with what Apple is doing to iOS and macOS:
I don't like what Apple is doing to my phone and laptop
> I also invite you to go to firefox.com right now and find me a single mention of AI, since you for some reason are imagining that it is being advertised as an "AI
browser".
Firefox will grow from a browser into a broader ecosystem of trusted software.
Firefox will remain our anchor.
It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.
"It will evolve into a modern AI browser". I don't want an AI browser, modern or otherwise.
They're describing a chat bot side bar as a useful feature that belongs in a browser, as a feature that's enabled by default. That's AI boosting (not boasting).
The need for killswitch I think is self-inflicted.
* Mozilla has a track record of forcing unwanted changes on its users. What with Pocket, data collection and telemetry defaults, sponsored links throughout the UI, all the good stuff.
* The enduring users are more likely to want to revert any Mozilla default the moment it's introduced. (This is why Firefox has disproportionately many projects to un-Mozilla the thing: Arkenfox, BetterFox, LibreWolf, Waterfox...)
This is from the annoying (sure hope so!) sporadic Firefox user who was actually pleased by the news. Honestly, I saw it and though: wow, Mozilla giving the tiniest part of control back to the user, that's actually good! Short-lived as the excitement was, in these fading moments of Firefox I'd like to see more of this and less of the user-hostile thing please.
However, the US government has / can have control over Micron's production. They are headquartered in the US. They have the intellectual property and know-how to erect a vertically integrated supply chain. Europe doesn't have this strategic investment.
Building a factory is one thing, they can have 50 of them built, but that doesn't mean much if all 50 together amount to like 0.1% of the company's output.
Once those factories scale up to 1-2%, then we can start considering that they've actually built a domestic supply, but that's a whole different goal than simply building the factories. Building factories is trivial. Making them output something is also "trivial". Scaling that up to a meaningful amount is a whole different, much harder goal to accomplish.
Yes, I'm pretty confident you don't know anything about manufacturing at scale.
Say you use a magic wand and build 15 new state-of-the-art factories tomorrow. Who's gonna run them? Does any location in the US have enough qualified workers that can simply take over and produce RAM in them from day 1 with no major fuckups?
No, you need a ton of time to teach thousands of people how to run those 15 factories. To even begin to teach people, you need to have 1 factory up and running. That 1 factory is at first going to be run by some of their existent workforce that they temporarily migrate from South Asia. Only then can they start to teach local populace how to run those factories on their own.
This is why it's much cheaper to simply build an additional one in South Asia than it is to build more than one in a whole new location. South Asia already has a bunch of workers that know what they're doing because they've been doing it for a long time. Build a new factory, promote some of your existent workforce up the chain, fill the lowest positions with fresh graduates that are gonna be equally good every year and you're good to go. It's nowhere near that simple in a brand new location, where even the most optimistic scenario would take longer than a decade to produce a meaningful amount of output.
Not to mention, given recent US immigration enforcement actions at various manufacturing plants, you can't even safely bring in overseas workers to train your domestic workforce...
It looks like it's still a big difference between how the US and EU are responding to the chip supply wars. The US is actually building their own manufacturing capabilities domestically while the EU is apparently doing nothing, which is unfortunate.
Infineon is _opening_ its fab plant in Dresden this year which was supported by around 1bn euros from the EU equivalent of the CHIPS Act. They started building this fab in 2023, while TSMC, who started building its fab in the US right after covid just delayed the opening to 2027
The fab that Infineon is building is vastly smaller in scale, and their tech isn't really relevant to this discussion. For instance, it doesn't produce CPU/GPU microchips or DRAM. Also only 300mm wafer technology, which isn't competitive for anything except for some narrow industrial use-cases. Glad to see the EU is doing it, but it's a completely different thing.
Pretty much everyone is on 300 mm wafers for everything now, and has been for a while. Are you perhaps reading this as 300
nm process (which would usually be called 0.3 micron)?
But in the context of what we are talking about it's still true that nobody in the EU is making cutting edge CPU/GPU/DRAM and there are no plans to do so either (including that Infineon fab).
I think an important distinction is that most of the awesome lists required an entry to have some sort of a sentence-long pitch about why something's awesome instead of a giant list of items with no way to distinguish between them without clicking. That's far more important than tags in my opinion.
That said, I am biased as I maintained quite a few of them years ago and am happy to see today's youngling maintain this tradition of low-effort contributions to make a source that's better than a search engine when looking for stuff in a specific niche.
No, I merely being sarcastic, because I know it's all boils down to power. Just ask yourself, why different language wikipedias diverge on some hot topics.
Because they're run by completely separate teams of moderators and Wikimedia (as in the organization) basically never interferes with other versions of Wikipedia?
Because every other language has far worse moderation, and you can pretty much guess how good the moderation is simply by asking yourself how relevant that version of Wikipedia even is in the first place?
I can understand 6 different versions of Wikipedia and my experience is the complete opposite of what you're insinuating, English version beats the other five 99.8% of the time even the topic at hand is completely local.
>Because they're run by completely separate teams of moderators and Wikimedia (as in the organization) basically never interferes with other versions of Wikipedia?
You are almost there. Yes, different groups of people can have different opinions on which sources are reliable, and reach different conclusions based on different sources.
On top of every version of Gemini, you also get both Claude models and GPT-OSS 120B. If you're doing webdev, it'll even launch a (self-contained) Chrome to "see" the result of its changes.
I haven't played around Codex, but it blows Claude Code's finicky terminal interface out of the water in my experience.
Very, yes, and pretty much anyone that doesn't want to spend their days implementing counter-meaeurements to shut down their scrapers by hiding the content behind a login. I do it all the time, it's fun.
I'm gonna single out Grokipedia as something deterministic enough to be able to easily prove it. I can easily point to sentences there (some about broad-ish topics) that are straight up Markov chain quality versions of sentences I've written. I can make it say anything I want to say or I can waste my time trying to fight their traffic "from Singapore" (Grok is the only "mainstream" LLM that refuses to identify itself via a user agent). Not really a tough choice if you ask me.
Anyways, that's why it's a good fit for Cloudflare: that backend needs to be run somewhere and Astro is big enough to have some sort of a userbase behind them that Cloudflare can advertise its service to. Think of it more as a targeted ad than a real acquisition because they're super interested in the technology behind it. If that were the case, they could've just forked it instead of acquiring it.
From Astro's perspective, they're (presumably) getting more money than they ever did working on a completely open source tool with zero paywalls, so it's a win-win for both sides that Cloudflare couldn't get from their vibe-coded project nobody's using at the moment.
reply