I was also thinking between these two. Still see the diffrence: I guess "critical path" is single, bottlenecks are multiple.

Awesome stuff! It would also be nice to add Opus Spicatum method when tiles are set at angles to form a “herringbone” zigzag pattern. It should be quite easy to implement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_spicatum

Excuse me, I can't help but cite this one wonderful song:

"When everything's made to be broken, I just want you to know who I am" (c) Iris by Goo Goo Dolls

I feel it touches on something deep that has to do with the current state of the tech world.

Are there any known commercial use cases?

I suppose that switching to Brave will be one of the best solutions after all. They have already comment this in June: https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3

Or Firefox, which isn't just a reskinned Chrome...

If you think Braves just 'reskinned chrome' you've clearly not used it.

I've tried Brave a few times. Doesn't seem significantly different from Chrome. Chromium will likely still dominate future choices for web standards and Google will still control what implementations work on the biggest properties.

Edge maintains more not-Chromium code on its Chromium browser than Brave does on its Chromium browser and both further encourage websites and users to strengthen Google's web monopoly.

What makes Brave trustworthy enough for us to run our entire life through it? For me it's irreparably forever tainted by crypto grifting.

The 'crypto grifting' is something you can turn off completely, it's there as a way to make the browser sustainable without accepting payments from Google to make it the default search engine.

I'd argue its far more trustworthy than modern day Firefox/Mozilla, they're not exactly the second coming these days.

What makes Firefox more trustworthy?

That's kind of like saying "yeah this is a mafia pizzeria but you can come eat at hours when the goons aren't there". Besides, why does Brave need that much funding? All they make is a Chromium wrapper, Google does all the work for them. They're not really an actual alternative in that sense, they just stuff it full of adblock, crypto, and god knows what. There was even a thing recently where it autoinstalled a VPN.

Yeah it's true that Mozilla's mostly financed from Google's anti-antitrust payments, but at least they actually made something of their own and have a trustworthy track record three decades long as a non-profit and Netscape before that.

> and god knows what

That right there sours your whole argument. Your entire reasoning here is based on "they're probably doing something dodgy", ignoring the bit about it being opensource, or that Firefox and Chrome are at the very minimum on equal terms of "dodgyness", as you'll no doubt already know.

"You can turn off the evil feature that evil people added" isn't really an argument that's gonna convince me that evil people are trustworthy.

Tell me I can turn off the evil intent, and not just one of its manifestations, and we're in business. But you can't tell me that.

By that logic you'd have to extend the same argument to Firefox, Chrome and Edge. All have a bunch of "evil" (which by your own definition evil = thing that makes a business money) things that can be disabled.

Once you've done that you're back to the same old question - why is <other browser> any better/safe/trustworth than Brave, which is arguably the only one that's gone out of their way to make sure its sustainable and not reliant on farming user data to the highest broker.

I'm gonna follow your lead on goal post moving for my response.

I'm sure no user data is shared with Brave's search partners (and don't pretend they don't get paid by Google and others for all the users who abandon the not-great Brave Search for a more capable service.) Google just pays them whatever they pinky swear to Google was their traffic, no reporting at all, no search telemetry, none of that. Right?

And I'm sure zero user data makes it to big advertisers who pay for full new tab takeovers. I mean, why wouldn't big advertisers throw tens of thousands of dollars a day on ads with no proof of reach or return.

Oh, it's anonymized, you say? So, just like all the other browsers?

Also, a quarter of a billion VC dollars have to be paid back at some point. You can't claim anything is truly sustainable when VCs still own a quarter of its value and it's taken VC money 7 of the last 10 years.

the lack of cryptogrifting.

Non-profits get a tiny bit more leeway in my book. Brave is not one of them.

For just another chromium skin, I prefer vivaldi as it has more traditional offerings than brave. While having more customizable ui.

I'd like to know how you intend to handle the infrastructure costs of providing this for free.

Also, how do you see the future of disposable email services as companies get better at detecting them?

He may easily cancel it in two weeks. With Trump, it's almost unpredictable how things will go.

Thanks a lot for sharing! A great food for thoughts. And yeah, I definitely don't want to build a custom solution - it should be max reliable and fast enough.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44465319 is the previous discussion.

Same story with me. It says for both Workspace and Personal accounts that they are Workspace.

Have you managed to overcome that?

You can also consider self-publishing taking into account the modern AI capabilities. Why don't try it, including Korean language, maybe with the final review by a human?

Here is the experience of Jurgen Appelo with his new book who decided to self-publish it: https://jurgenappelo.com/blogs/news/just-because-you-can

Prior to this one, Jurgen had written around 8 books using the traditional publishing approach.